It's funny how history repeats itself. We think of terrorists attacking civilian targets as unique to the last 40 or so years when it's not.
About a century ago Europe was rocked by anarchist terrorism. Ideologically driven bearded men bombed theatres, gunned down cafes and even managed to kill several world leaders in the pursuit of their cause. Sound familiar? In fact anarchist terrorists were more successful than their jihadist contemporaries. Anarchist terrorists managed to assassinate Tsar Alexander II of Russia, the French President Sadi Carnot, Spanish politicians Antonio Canovas and Jose Canelejas, King Umberto I of Italy, US President McKinley and the Austria-Hungarian Empress Elisabeth. Despite all these attacks, anarchist terrorism withered into obscurity and I believe the same thing will happen to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.
This problem will not be solved by the West, Western intervention has and always will be seen as aggressive. Islam has to solve these problems itself. The important ideological battle isn't the one between East and West, it is the fight between East and East, ISIS and groups like it seek to force the world into picking sides. This clash has been going on for the last 20 years and will continue to do so, as shown by the recent bombs in places like Baghdad and Kabul which have left 100s dead. Of course some of this is sectarian but other attacks have been against fellow Sunnis, presumably to force the people to pick sides.
The only way to solve this problem in the long term is to somehow return this dangerous form of Islam back to obscurity, maybe by removing its political driving force. (Another massive subject but I believe a lot of Islamic hostility/instability is driven by political factors, mostly a dislike of the "meddling west" caused by the Sykes-Picot agreement and the 1948 establishment of Israel. If this political hatred disappeared, so would Jihadism.) It would be fair to argue that Islam is expansionist and destructive, certainly the concept of Jihad has played a major role in its history, but by the early modern period, I believe this idea of jihad clashed with the realities of governance and life. The Ottoman Empire (the largest Islamic state) had an extremely large Christian minority, successive sultans realised it would be stupid to force their religion directly on their subjects and so "encouraged" conversion through economic means, they also let Catholic, Syriac, Orthodox and Jewish groups keep their own laws.
During this period, the practical realities of the world meant that the idea of mainstream external Jihad died. Scholars began to pick up on the more "tolerent" elements of Islam such as the Ashtiname of Muhammad. (This was essentially a document supposedly given to a monastery in Egypt by Muhammad himself that granted them freedom of religion, movement and exemption from taxes.) Clearly this relatively liberal document is seemingly at odds with the idea of Jihad, it's almost as if a group of 7th century texts can be manipulated to say anything that you want it to say... Hopefully, in the battle between extreme and moderate Islam, the more moderate elements will win. In the battle of ideologies, more liberal-minded scholars will begin to use the Ashtiname again. Christianity was successfully liberalised to the point that it is not a threat, with any luck Islam will be too.
In the end, terrorist anarchism failed because the allure of joining disappeared, in fact, it became so irrelevant that very few today know it even occurred. Hopefully Islamic terrorism will go the same way.
However many lessons there are from recent history our politicians don't seem to learn from them. The internet has led to a massive explosion in extreme ideas and it's made communication far easier
Why then is it okay to say that the attacks are because of letting in refugees when the evidence so far supports the belief that it was done by EU nationals?
It's Katrien Meire levels of logic.
EU nationals that have possibly been to Syria or elsewhere where extremists are rife and been highly, professionally trained and then sent back through open, porous borders as EU citizens to commit this ideology in home shores.
Not rocket science is it? These people must be in total shock at to how fucking easy it is to get into mainland EU and commit these atrocities.
Bet you'll be complaining about freedom of movement on your next holiday to Spain..!
Why then is it okay to say that the attacks are because of letting in refugees when the evidence so far supports the belief that it was done by EU nationals?
It's Katrien Meire levels of logic.
EU nationals that have possibly been to Syria or elsewhere where extremists are rife and been highly, professionally trained and then sent back through open, porous borders as EU citizens to commit this ideology in home shores.
Not rocket science is it? These people must be in total shock at to how fucking easy it is to get into mainland EU and commit these atrocities.
Bet you'll be complaining about freedom of movement on your next holiday to Spain..! At least we've got the channel.....
It's funny how history repeats itself. We think of terrorists attacking civilian targets as unique to the last 40 or so years when it's not.
About a century ago Europe was rocked by anarchist terrorism. Ideologically driven bearded men bombed theatres, gunned down cafes and even managed to kill several world leaders in the pursuit of their cause. Sound familiar? In fact anarchist terrorists were more successful than their jihadist contemporaries. Anarchist terrorists managed to assassinate Tsar Alexander II of Russia, the French President Sadi Carnot, Spanish politicians Antonio Canovas and Jose Canelejas, King Umberto I of Italy, US President McKinley and the Austria-Hungarian Empress Elisabeth. Despite all these attacks, anarchist terrorism withered into obscurity and I believe the same thing will happen to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.
This problem will not be solved by the West, Western intervention has and always will be seen as aggressive. Islam has to solve these problems itself. The important ideological battle isn't the one between East and West, it is the fight between East and East, ISIS and groups like it seek to force the world into picking sides. This clash has been going on for the last 20 years and will continue to do so, as shown by the recent bombs in places like Baghdad and Kabul which have left 100s dead. Of course some of this is sectarian but other attacks have been against fellow Sunnis, presumably to force the people to pick sides.
The only way to solve this problem in the long term is to somehow return this dangerous form of Islam back to obscurity, maybe by removing its political driving force. (Another massive subject but I believe a lot of Islamic hostility/instability is driven by political factors, mostly a dislike of the "meddling west" caused by the Sykes-Picot agreement and the 1948 establishment of Israel. If this political hatred disappeared, so would Jihadism.) It would be fair to argue that Islam is expansionist and destructive, certainly the concept of Jihad has played a major role in its history, but by the early modern period, I believe this idea of jihad clashed with the realities of governance and life. The Ottoman Empire (the largest Islamic state) had an extremely large Christian minority, successive sultans realised it would be stupid to force their religion directly on their subjects and so "encouraged" conversion through economic means, they also let Catholic, Syriac, Orthodox and Jewish groups keep their own laws.
During this period, the practical realities of the world meant that the idea of mainstream external Jihad died. Scholars began to pick up on the more "tolerent" elements of Islam such as the Ashtiname of Muhammad. (This was essentially a document supposedly given to a monastery in Egypt by Muhammad himself that granted them freedom of religion, movement and exemption from taxes.) Clearly this relatively liberal document is seemingly at odds with the idea of Jihad, it's almost as if a group of 7th century texts can be manipulated to say anything that you want it to say... Hopefully, in the battle between extreme and moderate Islam, the more moderate elements will win. In the battle of ideologies, more liberal-minded scholars will begin to use the Ashtiname again. Christianity was successfully liberalised to the point that it is not a threat, with any luck Islam will be too.
In the end, terrorist anarchism failed because the allure of joining disappeared, in fact, it became so irrelevant that very few today know it even occurred. Hopefully Islamic terrorism will go the same way.
However many lessons there are from recent history our politicians don't seem to learn from them. The internet has led to a massive explosion in extreme ideas and it's made communication far easier
Mohammed was a warrior among other things. Jesus preached peace.
Some Muslims, such as the extremists of I.S argue that they are following in Mohammed's footsteps when they behave in this way. They do not consider non-violent Muslims as genuine.
A person doing it in the name of Christianity cannot claim that they are following Jesus. That's a major difference.
It's funny how history repeats itself. We think of terrorists attacking civilian targets as unique to the last 40 or so years when it's not.
About a century ago Europe was rocked by anarchist terrorism. Ideologically driven bearded men bombed theatres, gunned down cafes and even managed to kill several world leaders in the pursuit of their cause. Sound familiar? In fact anarchist terrorists were more successful than their jihadist contemporaries. Anarchist terrorists managed to assassinate Tsar Alexander II of Russia, the French President Sadi Carnot, Spanish politicians Antonio Canovas and Jose Canelejas, King Umberto I of Italy, US President McKinley and the Austria-Hungarian Empress Elisabeth. Despite all these attacks, anarchist terrorism withered into obscurity and I believe the same thing will happen to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.
This problem will not be solved by the West, Western intervention has and always will be seen as aggressive. Islam has to solve these problems itself. The important ideological battle isn't the one between East and West, it is the fight between East and East, ISIS and groups like it seek to force the world into picking sides. This clash has been going on for the last 20 years and will continue to do so, as shown by the recent bombs in places like Baghdad and Kabul which have left 100s dead. Of course some of this is sectarian but other attacks have been against fellow Sunnis, presumably to force the people to pick sides.
The only way to solve this problem in the long term is to somehow return this dangerous form of Islam back to obscurity, maybe by removing its political driving force. (Another massive subject but I believe a lot of Islamic hostility/instability is driven by political factors, mostly a dislike of the "meddling west" caused by the Sykes-Picot agreement and the 1948 establishment of Israel. If this political hatred disappeared, so would Jihadism.) It would be fair to argue that Islam is expansionist and destructive, certainly the concept of Jihad has played a major role in its history, but by the early modern period, I believe this idea of jihad clashed with the realities of governance and life. The Ottoman Empire (the largest Islamic state) had an extremely large Christian minority, successive sultans realised it would be stupid to force their religion directly on their subjects and so "encouraged" conversion through economic means, they also let Catholic, Syriac, Orthodox and Jewish groups keep their own laws.
During this period, the practical realities of the world meant that the idea of mainstream external Jihad died. Scholars began to pick up on the more "tolerent" elements of Islam such as the Ashtiname of Muhammad. (This was essentially a document supposedly given to a monastery in Egypt by Muhammad himself that granted them freedom of religion, movement and exemption from taxes.) Clearly this relatively liberal document is seemingly at odds with the idea of Jihad, it's almost as if a group of 7th century texts can be manipulated to say anything that you want it to say... Hopefully, in the battle between extreme and moderate Islam, the more moderate elements will win. In the battle of ideologies, more liberal-minded scholars will begin to use the Ashtiname again. Christianity was successfully liberalised to the point that it is not a threat, with any luck Islam will be too.
In the end, terrorist anarchism failed because the allure of joining disappeared, in fact, it became so irrelevant that very few today know it even occurred. Hopefully Islamic terrorism will go the same way.
However many lessons there are from recent history our politicians don't seem to learn from them. The internet has led to a massive explosion in extreme ideas and it's made communication far easier
Yeah the internet changes everything
And the generation running the country barely understand it. It always goes back to the old saying, the general is always fighting the previous war..
Those still welcoming refugees, most of them fleeing what's likely to be 100 times worse than what's happened in Europe in recent times, I get that.
But it seems to be forgotten than ISIS communicated that they'd use the refugee crisis to sneak islamist's into Europe, so, that told if I offered you a bowl on M&M's and someone who's been known to poison bowls of M&M's said there's a few in there that are poisonous, would you eat one?
Mohammed was a warrior among other things. Jesus preached peace.
Some Muslims, such as the extremists of I.S argue that they are following in Mohammed's footsteps when they behave in this way. They do not consider non-violent Muslims as genuine.
A person doing it in the name of Christianity cannot claim that they are following Jesus. That's a major difference.
There are some people who claimed to be Christian but, at the same time, were open to the idea of a bit of violence.
RIP to the victims. Have been to Brussels regularly with work over the last decade and am due out there in a month or so.
Glad to say my friend from Uni and work colleagues both UK and Brussels-based at the EC werent caught up in the attrocities.
I cant even begin to understand the mindset of an individual who thinks they need to kill innocent people. I dont want to either tbh. Surely no religion can think that is right.
Those still welcoming refugees, most of them fleeing what's likely to be 100 times worse than what's happened in Europe in recent times, I get that.
But it seems to be forgotten than ISIS communicated that they'd use the refugee crisis to sneak islamist's into Europe, so, that told if I offered you a bowl on M&M's and someone who's been known to poison bowls of M&M's said there's a few in there that are poisonous, would you eat one?
yeah I mean why would ISIS lie to us? What a mean thing to do.
Personally I just see it as them spreading fear and hatred towards innocent people fleeing them. But hey, maybe Isis are stand up truthful fellows after all.
Those still welcoming refugees, most of them fleeing what's likely to be 100 times worse than what's happened in Europe in recent times, I get that.
But it seems to be forgotten than ISIS communicated that they'd use the refugee crisis to sneak islamist's into Europe, so, that told if I offered you a bowl on M&M's and someone who's been known to poison bowls of M&M's said there's a few in there that are poisonous, would you eat one?
yeah I mean why would ISIS lie to us? What a mean thing to do.
Personally I just see it as them spreading fear and hatred towards innocent people fleeing them. But hey, maybe Isis are stand up truthful fellows after all.
Those still welcoming refugees, most of them fleeing what's likely to be 100 times worse than what's happened in Europe in recent times, I get that.
But it seems to be forgotten than ISIS communicated that they'd use the refugee crisis to sneak islamist's into Europe, so, that told if I offered you a bowl on M&M's and someone who's been known to poison bowls of M&M's said there's a few in there that are poisonous, would you eat one?
But, by the same token, if a house was burning down with people inside, would you not seek to have them rescued, even if there was a good chance that one of them was an arsonist?
Those still welcoming refugees, most of them fleeing what's likely to be 100 times worse than what's happened in Europe in recent times, I get that.
But it seems to be forgotten than ISIS communicated that they'd use the refugee crisis to sneak islamist's into Europe, so, that told if I offered you a bowl on M&M's and someone who's been known to poison bowls of M&M's said there's a few in there that are poisonous, would you eat one?
But, by the same token, if a house was burning down with people inside, would you not seek to have them rescued, even if there was a good chance that one of them was an arsonist?
Those still welcoming refugees, most of them fleeing what's likely to be 100 times worse than what's happened in Europe in recent times, I get that.
But it seems to be forgotten than ISIS communicated that they'd use the refugee crisis to sneak islamist's into Europe, so, that told if I offered you a bowl on M&M's and someone who's been known to poison bowls of M&M's said there's a few in there that are poisonous, would you eat one?
yeah I mean why would ISIS lie to us? What a mean thing to do.
Personally I just see it as them spreading fear and hatred towards innocent people fleeing them. But hey, maybe Isis are stand up truthful fellows after all.
So would you eat one or not?
Only if they're peanut m and m's. Peanut m and m's are delicious. I mean I could eat them all day and not get tired. I'm being serious.
Personally if some one who told me that they'd invade and burn Rome to the ground said they'd poisoned some m and m's despite repeatadly losing capital and territory. I think id take their threats with a pinch of salt.
It's funny how history repeats itself. We think of terrorists attacking civilian targets as unique to the last 40 or so years when it's not.
About a century ago Europe was rocked by anarchist terrorism. Ideologically driven bearded men bombed theatres, gunned down cafes and even managed to kill several world leaders in the pursuit of their cause. Sound familiar? In fact anarchist terrorists were more successful than their jihadist contemporaries. Anarchist terrorists managed to assassinate Tsar Alexander II of Russia, the French President Sadi Carnot, Spanish politicians Antonio Canovas and Jose Canelejas, King Umberto I of Italy, US President McKinley and the Austria-Hungarian Empress Elisabeth. Despite all these attacks, anarchist terrorism withered into obscurity and I believe the same thing will happen to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.
This problem will not be solved by the West, Western intervention has and always will be seen as aggressive. Islam has to solve these problems itself. The important ideological battle isn't the one between East and West, it is the fight between East and East, ISIS and groups like it seek to force the world into picking sides. This clash has been going on for the last 20 years and will continue to do so, as shown by the recent bombs in places like Baghdad and Kabul which have left 100s dead. Of course some of this is sectarian but other attacks have been against fellow Sunnis, presumably to force the people to pick sides.
The only way to solve this problem in the long term is to somehow return this dangerous form of Islam back to obscurity, maybe by removing its political driving force. (Another massive subject but I believe a lot of Islamic hostility/instability is driven by political factors, mostly a dislike of the "meddling west" caused by the Sykes-Picot agreement and the 1948 establishment of Israel. If this political hatred disappeared, so would Jihadism.) It would be fair to argue that Islam is expansionist and destructive, certainly the concept of Jihad has played a major role in its history, but by the early modern period, I believe this idea of jihad clashed with the realities of governance and life. The Ottoman Empire (the largest Islamic state) had an extremely large Christian minority, successive sultans realised it would be stupid to force their religion directly on their subjects and so "encouraged" conversion through economic means, they also let Catholic, Syriac, Orthodox and Jewish groups keep their own laws.
During this period, the practical realities of the world meant that the idea of mainstream external Jihad died. Scholars began to pick up on the more "tolerent" elements of Islam such as the Ashtiname of Muhammad. (This was essentially a document supposedly given to a monastery in Egypt by Muhammad himself that granted them freedom of religion, movement and exemption from taxes.) Clearly this relatively liberal document is seemingly at odds with the idea of Jihad, it's almost as if a group of 7th century texts can be manipulated to say anything that you want it to say... Hopefully, in the battle between extreme and moderate Islam, the more moderate elements will win. In the battle of ideologies, more liberal-minded scholars will begin to use the Ashtiname again. Christianity was successfully liberalised to the point that it is not a threat, with any luck Islam will be too.
In the end, terrorist anarchism failed because the allure of joining disappeared, in fact, it became so irrelevant that very few today know it even occurred. Hopefully Islamic terrorism will go the same way.
However many lessons there are from recent history our politicians don't seem to learn from them. The internet has led to a massive explosion in extreme ideas and it's made communication far easier
Yeah the internet changes everything
And the generation running the country barely understand it. It always goes back to the old saying, the general is always fighting the previous war..
On this note, I went to parents evening about internet safety at my daughter's school (and turned into Mary Whitehouse overnight) and this very point was made. Loads of social networking sites I had never heard of, and strong evidence that grooming for terrorism follows exactly the same template as that used by sex offenders. Chilling
It's funny how history repeats itself. We think of terrorists attacking civilian targets as unique to the last 40 or so years when it's not.
About a century ago Europe was rocked by anarchist terrorism. Ideologically driven bearded men bombed theatres, gunned down cafes and even managed to kill several world leaders in the pursuit of their cause. Sound familiar? In fact anarchist terrorists were more successful than their jihadist contemporaries. Anarchist terrorists managed to assassinate Tsar Alexander II of Russia, the French President Sadi Carnot, Spanish politicians Antonio Canovas and Jose Canelejas, King Umberto I of Italy, US President McKinley and the Austria-Hungarian Empress Elisabeth. Despite all these attacks, anarchist terrorism withered into obscurity and I believe the same thing will happen to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.
This problem will not be solved by the West, Western intervention has and always will be seen as aggressive. Islam has to solve these problems itself. The important ideological battle isn't the one between East and West, it is the fight between East and East, ISIS and groups like it seek to force the world into picking sides. This clash has been going on for the last 20 years and will continue to do so, as shown by the recent bombs in places like Baghdad and Kabul which have left 100s dead. Of course some of this is sectarian but other attacks have been against fellow Sunnis, presumably to force the people to pick sides.
The only way to solve this problem in the long term is to somehow return this dangerous form of Islam back to obscurity, maybe by removing its political driving force. (Another massive subject but I believe a lot of Islamic hostility/instability is driven by political factors, mostly a dislike of the "meddling west" caused by the Sykes-Picot agreement and the 1948 establishment of Israel. If this political hatred disappeared, so would Jihadism.) It would be fair to argue that Islam is expansionist and destructive, certainly the concept of Jihad has played a major role in its history, but by the early modern period, I believe this idea of jihad clashed with the realities of governance and life. The Ottoman Empire (the largest Islamic state) had an extremely large Christian minority, successive sultans realised it would be stupid to force their religion directly on their subjects and so "encouraged" conversion through economic means, they also let Catholic, Syriac, Orthodox and Jewish groups keep their own laws.
During this period, the practical realities of the world meant that the idea of mainstream external Jihad died. Scholars began to pick up on the more "tolerent" elements of Islam such as the Ashtiname of Muhammad. (This was essentially a document supposedly given to a monastery in Egypt by Muhammad himself that granted them freedom of religion, movement and exemption from taxes.) Clearly this relatively liberal document is seemingly at odds with the idea of Jihad, it's almost as if a group of 7th century texts can be manipulated to say anything that you want it to say... Hopefully, in the battle between extreme and moderate Islam, the more moderate elements will win. In the battle of ideologies, more liberal-minded scholars will begin to use the Ashtiname again. Christianity was successfully liberalised to the point that it is not a threat, with any luck Islam will be too.
In the end, terrorist anarchism failed because the allure of joining disappeared, in fact, it became so irrelevant that very few today know it even occurred. Hopefully Islamic terrorism will go the same way.
However many lessons there are from recent history our politicians don't seem to learn from them. The internet has led to a massive explosion in extreme ideas and it's made communication far easier
Yeah the internet changes everything
And the generation running the country barely understand it. It always goes back to the old saying, the general is always fighting the previous war..
On this note, I went to parents evening about internet safety at my daughter's school (and turned into Mary Whitehouse overnight) and this very point was made. Loads of social networking sites I had never heard of, and strong evidence that grooming for terrorism follows exactly the same template as that used by sex offenders. Chilling
Then there's the other side to the coin. Where david Cameron himself said he'll ban encryption. Which is a bit like saying I'll ban all front door locks. Utterly crazy.
Those still welcoming refugees, most of them fleeing what's likely to be 100 times worse than what's happened in Europe in recent times, I get that.
But it seems to be forgotten than ISIS communicated that they'd use the refugee crisis to sneak islamist's into Europe, so, that told if I offered you a bowl on M&M's and someone who's been known to poison bowls of M&M's said there's a few in there that are poisonous, would you eat one?
But, by the same token, if a house was burning down with people inside, would you not seek to have them rescued, even if there was a good chance that one of them was an arsonist?
I'd rescue them but I'm not sure I'd put them up in my family house for perpetuity.
It's funny how history repeats itself. We think of terrorists attacking civilian targets as unique to the last 40 or so years when it's not.
About a century ago Europe was rocked by anarchist terrorism. Ideologically driven bearded men bombed theatres, gunned down cafes and even managed to kill several world leaders in the pursuit of their cause. Sound familiar? In fact anarchist terrorists were more successful than their jihadist contemporaries. Anarchist terrorists managed to assassinate Tsar Alexander II of Russia, the French President Sadi Carnot, Spanish politicians Antonio Canovas and Jose Canelejas, King Umberto I of Italy, US President McKinley and the Austria-Hungarian Empress Elisabeth. Despite all these attacks, anarchist terrorism withered into obscurity and I believe the same thing will happen to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.
This problem will not be solved by the West, Western intervention has and always will be seen as aggressive. Islam has to solve these problems itself. The important ideological battle isn't the one between East and West, it is the fight between East and East, ISIS and groups like it seek to force the world into picking sides. This clash has been going on for the last 20 years and will continue to do so, as shown by the recent bombs in places like Baghdad and Kabul which have left 100s dead. Of course some of this is sectarian but other attacks have been against fellow Sunnis, presumably to force the people to pick sides.
The only way to solve this problem in the long term is to somehow return this dangerous form of Islam back to obscurity, maybe by removing its political driving force. (Another massive subject but I believe a lot of Islamic hostility/instability is driven by political factors, mostly a dislike of the "meddling west" caused by the Sykes-Picot agreement and the 1948 establishment of Israel. If this political hatred disappeared, so would Jihadism.) It would be fair to argue that Islam is expansionist and destructive, certainly the concept of Jihad has played a major role in its history, but by the early modern period, I believe this idea of jihad clashed with the realities of governance and life. The Ottoman Empire (the largest Islamic state) had an extremely large Christian minority, successive sultans realised it would be stupid to force their religion directly on their subjects and so "encouraged" conversion through economic means, they also let Catholic, Syriac, Orthodox and Jewish groups keep their own laws.
During this period, the practical realities of the world meant that the idea of mainstream external Jihad died. Scholars began to pick up on the more "tolerent" elements of Islam such as the Ashtiname of Muhammad. (This was essentially a document supposedly given to a monastery in Egypt by Muhammad himself that granted them freedom of religion, movement and exemption from taxes.) Clearly this relatively liberal document is seemingly at odds with the idea of Jihad, it's almost as if a group of 7th century texts can be manipulated to say anything that you want it to say... Hopefully, in the battle between extreme and moderate Islam, the more moderate elements will win. In the battle of ideologies, more liberal-minded scholars will begin to use the Ashtiname again. Christianity was successfully liberalised to the point that it is not a threat, with any luck Islam will be too.
In the end, terrorist anarchism failed because the allure of joining disappeared, in fact, it became so irrelevant that very few today know it even occurred. Hopefully Islamic terrorism will go the same way.
However many lessons there are from recent history our politicians don't seem to learn from them. The internet has led to a massive explosion in extreme ideas and it's made communication far easier
Yeah the internet changes everything
And the generation running the country barely understand it. It always goes back to the old saying, the general is always fighting the previous war..
On this note, I went to parents evening about internet safety at my daughter's school (and turned into Mary Whitehouse overnight) and this very point was made. Loads of social networking sites I had never heard of, and strong evidence that grooming for terrorism follows exactly the same template as that used by sex offenders. Chilling
Then there's the other side to the coin. Where david Cameron himself said he'll ban encryption. Which is a bit like saying I'll ban all front door locks. Utterly crazy.
Banning it after the horse has bolted. The long road to victory involves education and collectively standing against it. For example if every approach made to someone on the net (say, by a paedo) was reported then it would be a lot harder for them to operate. Same with extremism. If it was brought into the open and challenged, and there was some honesty about it, maybe there would be fewer exremists. Trouble is, extreme, fundamentalist religion is in its purest form... If you argue that's it's a total crock of shit, how can you argue that moderate Islam isn't.
Mohammed was a warrior among other things. Jesus preached peace.
Some Muslims, such as the extremists of I.S argue that they are following in Mohammed's footsteps when they behave in this way. They do not consider non-violent Muslims as genuine.
A person doing it in the name of Christianity cannot claim that they are following Jesus. That's a major difference.
The irony is that Muslims have a high regard for Jesus too as a prophet. Arguably second only to Muhammad.
Muhammad said this:
Kindness is a mark of faith, and whoever is not kind has no faith. The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr. To overcome evil with good is good, to resist evil by evil is evil. None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself. Four things support the world: the learning of the wise, the justice of the great, the prayers of the good, and the valour of the brave
Makes the actions of the terrorist scum claiming to represent Islam even more bizarre in my book.
Those still welcoming refugees, most of them fleeing what's likely to be 100 times worse than what's happened in Europe in recent times, I get that.
But it seems to be forgotten than ISIS communicated that they'd use the refugee crisis to sneak islamist's into Europe, so, that told if I offered you a bowl on M&M's and someone who's been known to poison bowls of M&M's said there's a few in there that are poisonous, would you eat one?
Depends how big the bowl is. If it's a massive bowl and only one or two of them are poisonous, yep I'd risk it.
Um, Christianity has its fair share in history of religious/righteous violence. 1500 AD and the next 100 years brought the reformation in the UK (by bye Catholics, hello, bye bye), the start of slavery to US and the French religious wars etc etc. Ask any of those involved and they would probably say they were following the teachings of Jesus even if you or I would have no idea how they thought that.
Any social control mechanism is open to abuse in the name of their beliefs by those doing the controlling.
It is not restricted to religions but is true of governments, security agencies, armies and weopens deployed by those governments.
Amongst religions it is not restricted to Islam.
The coordinated killing of civilians with no particular goal other than consolidation of that cult rather than any specific military aim is on the rise. A tactic used many times over the years by colonial powers but infrequently recently in Western 'civilised' countries.
Blaming Islam alone for this is not correct.
Killing all Muslims, excluding all Muslims from 'civilised' countries is absurd.
Meeting force with force may work in some circumstances but may also encourage deeper hostile engagements. I am not sure about the use of extreme force in areas where this leaves a power vacuum, such a vacuum is being exploited by Isis today.
Even Donald trump has not yet suggested nuking the whole of the Middle East and turkey as a solution, although this may be just a matter of time.
Can the world unite to crush Isis? Maybe although a guerilla desert fight is difficult to win particularly when your best buddies the Saudis are probably flinging money over the fence as you are trying to break it down.
Can the world agree what to do to ensure something similar does not rise in its place? Probably yes. But it would need concerted well led actions both pre and post any United action and this level of leadership and unity seems in short supply.
It's funny how history repeats itself. We think of terrorists attacking civilian targets as unique to the last 40 or so years when it's not.
About a century ago Europe was rocked by anarchist terrorism. Ideologically driven bearded men bombed theatres, gunned down cafes and even managed to kill several world leaders in the pursuit of their cause. Sound familiar? In fact anarchist terrorists were more successful than their jihadist contemporaries. Anarchist terrorists managed to assassinate Tsar Alexander II of Russia, the French President Sadi Carnot, Spanish politicians Antonio Canovas and Jose Canelejas, King Umberto I of Italy, US President McKinley and the Austria-Hungarian Empress Elisabeth. Despite all these attacks, anarchist terrorism withered into obscurity and I believe the same thing will happen to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.
This problem will not be solved by the West, Western intervention has and always will be seen as aggressive. Islam has to solve these problems itself. The important ideological battle isn't the one between East and West, it is the fight between East and East, ISIS and groups like it seek to force the world into picking sides. This clash has been going on for the last 20 years and will continue to do so, as shown by the recent bombs in places like Baghdad and Kabul which have left 100s dead. Of course some of this is sectarian but other attacks have been against fellow Sunnis, presumably to force the people to pick sides.
The only way to solve this problem in the long term is to somehow return this dangerous form of Islam back to obscurity, maybe by removing its political driving force. (Another massive subject but I believe a lot of Islamic hostility/instability is driven by political factors, mostly a dislike of the "meddling west" caused by the Sykes-Picot agreement and the 1948 establishment of Israel. If this political hatred disappeared, so would Jihadism.) It would be fair to argue that Islam is expansionist and destructive, certainly the concept of Jihad has played a major role in its history, but by the early modern period, I believe this idea of jihad clashed with the realities of governance and life. The Ottoman Empire (the largest Islamic state) had an extremely large Christian minority, successive sultans realised it would be stupid to force their religion directly on their subjects and so "encouraged" conversion through economic means, they also let Catholic, Syriac, Orthodox and Jewish groups keep their own laws.
During this period, the practical realities of the world meant that the idea of mainstream external Jihad died. Scholars began to pick up on the more "tolerent" elements of Islam such as the Ashtiname of Muhammad. (This was essentially a document supposedly given to a monastery in Egypt by Muhammad himself that granted them freedom of religion, movement and exemption from taxes.) Clearly this relatively liberal document is seemingly at odds with the idea of Jihad, it's almost as if a group of 7th century texts can be manipulated to say anything that you want it to say... Hopefully, in the battle between extreme and moderate Islam, the more moderate elements will win. In the battle of ideologies, more liberal-minded scholars will begin to use the Ashtiname again. Christianity was successfully liberalised to the point that it is not a threat, with any luck Islam will be too.
In the end, terrorist anarchism failed because the allure of joining disappeared, in fact, it became so irrelevant that very few today know it even occurred. Hopefully Islamic terrorism will go the same way.
However many lessons there are from recent history our politicians don't seem to learn from them. The internet has led to a massive explosion in extreme ideas and it's made communication far easier
Yeah the internet changes everything
And the generation running the country barely understand it. It always goes back to the old saying, the general is always fighting the previous war..
On this note, I went to parents evening about internet safety at my daughter's school (and turned into Mary Whitehouse overnight) and this very point was made. Loads of social networking sites I had never heard of, and strong evidence that grooming for terrorism follows exactly the same template as that used by sex offenders. Chilling
Then there's the other side to the coin. Where david Cameron himself said he'll ban encryption. Which is a bit like saying I'll ban all front door locks. Utterly crazy.
Banning it after the horse has bolted. The long road to victory involves education and collectively standing against it. For example if every approach made to someone on the net (say, by a paedo) was reported then it would be a lot harder for them to operate. Same with extremism. If it was brought into the open and challenged, and there was some honesty about it, maybe there would be fewer exremists. Trouble is, extreme, fundamentalist religion is in its purest form... If you argue that's it's a total crock of shit, how can you argue that moderate Islam isn't.
The horse Had lived a long and health life, died and became grass by the time Cameron said that. Encryption is fundamental to the Internet and how it works. Wanna order something online? Can't do it without encryption. Wanna check your bank details? Nope, Gotta do it the old fashioned way. Every company in the uk would be wide open to cyber terrorism and economic espionage. Banning encryption is down right looney.
If people are looking for a way to end all Islamist terrorism, the solution requires peace in the Middle East.
Anything else is a stop-gap measure.
'Peace' is not the same thing as 'the absence of organised armed conflict'.
Nail on head. And to people shrugging their shoulders and saying its a millenia long conflict between Shia and sunni must remember catholic vs Protestant issues in Northern Ireland. Okay not totally finished but peaceful - relatively
Those still welcoming refugees, most of them fleeing what's likely to be 100 times worse than what's happened in Europe in recent times, I get that.
But it seems to be forgotten than ISIS communicated that they'd use the refugee crisis to sneak islamist's into Europe, so, that told if I offered you a bowl on M&M's and someone who's been known to poison bowls of M&M's said there's a few in there that are poisonous, would you eat one?
Depends how big the bowl is. If it's a massive bowl and only one or two of them are poisonous, yep I'd risk it.
What if you were already full..
You must be a gambling man, if those 1 or 2 caused death of your own countrymen you'd feel bad no?
Comments
Not rocket science is it? These people must be in total shock at to how fucking easy it is to get into mainland EU and commit these atrocities.
Bet you'll be complaining about freedom of movement on your next holiday to Spain..!
At least we've got the channel.....
Some Muslims, such as the extremists of I.S argue that they are following in Mohammed's footsteps when they behave in this way. They do not consider non-violent Muslims as genuine.
A person doing it in the name of Christianity cannot claim that they are following Jesus. That's a major difference.
But it seems to be forgotten than ISIS communicated that they'd use the refugee crisis to sneak islamist's into Europe, so, that told if I offered you a bowl on M&M's and someone who's been known to poison bowls of M&M's said there's a few in there that are poisonous, would you eat one?
Glad to say my friend from Uni and work colleagues both UK and Brussels-based at the EC werent caught up in the attrocities.
I cant even begin to understand the mindset of an individual who thinks they need to kill innocent people. I dont want to either tbh. Surely no religion can think that is right.
Personally I just see it as them spreading fear and hatred towards innocent people fleeing them. But hey, maybe Isis are stand up truthful fellows after all.
Personally if some one who told me that they'd invade and burn Rome to the ground said they'd poisoned some m and m's despite repeatadly losing capital and territory. I think id take their threats with a pinch of salt.
Muhammad said this:
Kindness is a mark of faith, and whoever is not kind has no faith.
The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr.
To overcome evil with good is good, to resist evil by evil is evil.
None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.
Four things support the world: the learning of the wise, the justice of the great, the prayers of the good, and the valour of the brave
Makes the actions of the terrorist scum claiming to represent Islam even more bizarre in my book.
Any social control mechanism is open to abuse in the name of their beliefs by those doing the controlling.
It is not restricted to religions but is true of governments, security agencies, armies and weopens deployed by those governments.
Amongst religions it is not restricted to Islam.
The coordinated killing of civilians with no particular goal other than consolidation of that cult rather than any specific military aim is on the rise. A tactic used many times over the years by colonial powers but infrequently recently in Western 'civilised' countries.
Blaming Islam alone for this is not correct.
Killing all Muslims, excluding all Muslims from 'civilised' countries is absurd.
Meeting force with force may work in some circumstances but may also encourage deeper hostile engagements. I am not sure about the use of extreme force in areas where this leaves a power vacuum, such a vacuum is being exploited by Isis today.
Even Donald trump has not yet suggested nuking the whole of the Middle East and turkey as a solution, although this may be just a matter of time.
Can the world unite to crush Isis? Maybe although a guerilla desert fight is difficult to win particularly when your best buddies the Saudis are probably flinging money over the fence as you are trying to break it down.
Can the world agree what to do to ensure something similar does not rise in its place? Probably yes. But it would need concerted well led actions both pre and post any United action and this level of leadership and unity seems in short supply.
Anything else is a stop-gap measure.
'Peace' is not the same thing as 'the absence of organised armed conflict'.
You must be a gambling man, if those 1 or 2 caused death of your own countrymen you'd feel bad no?