Terrorist Spree

[Husar]

You can chicken and egg the historical antecedents of these things ad nauseum.

The core concern is really rather simple -- How do we defeat them? As with much that is simple, simple does not equal easy.

Might help if we stop doing things that drive them into poverty or cause other problems for them that drive them into extremism and make them very angry.
I'm aware it will not stop all of them, but reducing their numbers may be a good start, I'm not aware of a good way to end an ideology.

So in short, colonialism in and of itself is not the cause.

No, it is in even shorter.

[Pannonian]

Might help if we stop doing things that drive them into poverty or cause other problems for them that drive them into extremism and make them very angry.
I'm aware it will not stop all of them, but reducing their numbers may be a good start, I'm not aware of a good way to end an ideology.

Most of the troublemakers were born here.

[Husar]

Most of the troublemakers were born here.

In some ghetto and growing up with the "locals" never wanting to talk to them?
Aren't those the areas where a lot of the recruits come from? Then you'd have to say the mistakes were made long before multiculturalism was even a word. At least here we imported the first Turks purely out of greed and to be competitive, which may explain why the Germans tried to ignore them. I'm not sure why France, Britain and the Netherlands for example have so many immigrants from their colonies, do they have free movement or easier immigration? Or do they just prefer their former colonial overlords because they already speak the language?

I don't think anyone can seriously claim that all the muslims in Britain and France only came with the recent waves of refugees, even in Germany we had some very few black people who already lived here under the Nazis, I'd assume in France and Britain there were quite a few more, and that the French used them as soldiers who could never become officers in WW2 should be known as well. Another reason they are often disenfranchized by the way. One may say the situation for them improved with multiculturalism, but they were already burnt by that time and the ghettos established. Multiculturalism doesn't close ghettos in practice.

I know Arabs and Turks who were born here and are basically Germans with a few quirks, apparently the people in the banlieus (forgive me if I forgot a letter that you don't spell anyway) for example are not like that, why?
That still leaves some who think being an islamofascist is a cool underground fashion thing to defend their master race or something, but as Fragony always says, nothing we can do, other than maybe make it appear less cool in general. They seem to argue with the West treating its immigrants like second class people as well.

So what do you think the reasons are?

PS: The reason I don't quite buy purely religious reasons for such zeal might be that I grew up going to very fundamentalist Christian churches, I actually know a guy who went to Texas and preached on campuses there... (you may not want to believe it, but he's actually a cool guy in general, I'm not saying I don't like him)
And I somehow got the impression that these Christians also often have their rather personal reasons to invest this much into their religion, it's not just the religion alone, it can be a fear of permanent death, really bad experiences with the general atheist world and their "friends" outside the church, so that they need a reason why it is this way, and so on. And muslim people are not genetically different from Christian people so that it could explain a completely different behavior I think. The major difference is probably that they have a much larger percentage that grows up in this more fundamentalist muslim world.

[Pannonian]

In some ghetto and growing up with the "locals" never wanting to talk to them?
Aren't those the areas where a lot of the recruits come from? Then you'd have to say the mistakes were made long before multiculturalism was even a word. At least here we imported the first Turks purely out of greed and to be competitive, which may explain why the Germans tried to ignore them. I'm not sure why France, Britain and the Netherlands for example have so many immigrants from their colonies, do they have free movement or easier immigration? Or do they just prefer their former colonial overlords because they already speak the language?

I don't think anyone can seriously claim that all the muslims in Britain and France only came with the recent waves of refugees, even in Germany we had some very few black people who already lived here under the Nazis, I'd assume in France and Britain there were quite a few more, and that the French used them as soldiers who could never become officers in WW2 should be known as well. Another reason they are often disenfranchized by the way. One may say the situation for them improved with multiculturalism, but they were already burnt by that time and the ghettos established. Multiculturalism doesn't close ghettos in practice.

I know Arabs and Turks who were born here and are basically Germans with a few quirks, apparently the people in the banlieus (forgive me if I forgot a letter that you don't spell anyway) for example are not like that, why?
That still leaves some who think being an islamofascist is a cool underground fashion thing to defend their master race or something, but as Fragony always says, nothing we can do, other than maybe make it appear less cool in general. They seem to argue with the West treating its immigrants like second class people as well.

So what do you think the reasons are?

PS: The reason I don't quite buy purely religious reasons for such zeal might be that I grew up going to very fundamentalist Christian churches, I actually know a guy who went to Texas and preached on campuses there... (you may not want to believe it, but he's actually a cool guy in general, I'm not saying I don't like him)
And I somehow got the impression that these Christians also often have their rather personal reasons to invest this much into their religion, it's not just the religion alone, it can be a fear of permanent death, really bad experiences with the general atheist world and their "friends" outside the church, so that they need a reason why it is this way, and so on. And muslim people are not genetically different from Christian people so that it could explain a completely different behavior I think. The major difference is probably that they have a much larger percentage that grows up in this more fundamentalist muslim world.

AFAIK there aren't any ethnic ghettos in the UK. Ghettos, such as they are, are inhabited by class, not race. Where cultural separation exists, it does so because of choice on the individual's part. Older generations, where the cultural gap can be expected to be greater, fit in quite well with the general older population. It is the younger population, who were born here and grew up as British as everyone else, who provide most of the troublemakers. After the ethnic tensions of the early 1980s, blacks, who are even further removed from the native white skins than brown skinned people, have merged into the general British identity, so that there is less of a distinct Afro-Caribbean culture left nowadays among the younger population (it's all part of the young British culture). In contrast, young Muslims who emphasise their Muslim identity react against the cultural merger, maintaining through their own choice a separation between Muslim culture and British culture.

Other cultures have merged within a general British culture, to the point where there is greater difference between different generations of the same ethnicity than between different ethnicities within the same generation. Why is it the fault of the host culture if some aliens, born in their midst and with the same upbringing as everyone else, decide to separate themselves?

[Husar]

AFAIK there aren't any ethnic ghettos in the UK. Ghettos, such as they are, are inhabited by class, not race. Where cultural separation exists, it does so because of choice on the individual's part. Older generations, where the cultural gap can be expected to be greater, fit in quite well with the general older population. It is the younger population, who were born here and grew up as British as everyone else, who provide most of the troublemakers. After the ethnic tensions of the early 1980s, blacks, who are even further removed from the native white skins than brown skinned people, have merged into the general British identity, so that there is less of a distinct Afro-Caribbean culture left nowadays among the younger population (it's all part of the young British culture). In contrast, young Muslims who emphasise their Muslim identity react against the cultural merger, maintaining through their own choice a separation between Muslim culture and British culture.

Other cultures have merged within a general British culture, to the point where there is greater difference between different generations of the same ethnicity than between different ethnicities within the same generation. Why is it the fault of the host culture if some aliens, born in their midst and with the same upbringing as everyone else, decide to separate themselves?

Yes, that explanation does make some sense indeed, Christians also preach about not joining the "world", i.e. atheists etc., because it is ruled by the devil and they have to remain distinct, stay away from the temptations and so on. I can see how very religious muslims are the same.
What I'm not sure about though is what can be done because citizenship is usually unrevokable and if they were born in Britain, they should have it. Other countries would also likely refuse to take them. Trying to reduce extremism somehow would seem the closest approach, no? And then I'm not sure if the same explanation is valid for France, Germany or Belgium, basically whether it is indeed like that for every extremist out there. After all, plenty of them do come from countries like Algeria for example, and they're the ones giving the European youths ideas over the web etc., no?

[AE Bravo]

PS: The reason I don't quite buy purely religious reasons for such zeal might be that I grew up going to very fundamentalist Christian churches, I actually know a guy who went to Texas and preached on campuses there... (you may not want to believe it, but he's actually a cool guy in general, I'm not saying I don't like him)
And I somehow got the impression that these Christians also often have their rather personal reasons to invest this much into their religion, it's not just the religion alone, it can be a fear of permanent death, really bad experiences with the general atheist world and their "friends" outside the church, so that they need a reason why it is this way, and so on. And muslim people are not genetically different from Christian people so that it could explain a completely different behavior I think. The major difference is probably that they have a much larger percentage that grows up in this more fundamentalist muslim world.

I think you're generally on point with this, aside from underestimating religious zeal. These individuals tend to have extraordinary levels of faith that are only fueled by some of the traits you pointed out rather than defined by them. As a person who might have had a similar upbringing, I can say with certainty that the issue here is dogma unique to this religion, or at least the way it is taught to you. For fanatics, it only takes one part or understanding of the whole thing to surrender yourself to some apocalyptic vision or suicide - the idea that God has it all mapped out and there's no need to search for your own answers as they're already there. The problem here is that, especially among North African communities now prevalent in Europe, is that their motherlands carry that same hardwired understanding of religion. Countries in between Morocco and Egypt (excluded) have a radical commonplace Islamist culture, everyone whose been there knows that. This in turn affects the upbringing of some of these people in Europe. It's like those boys that murdered their parents in Saudi Arabia for not allowing them to go to 'holy war,' what they were taught in school is a tunnel-visioned view of a route to heaven so there was only one thing (in their mind) for them to do once their parents got in their way. That's how powerful it can be. Islamists can very well be like children touched by their uncle, or in this case an education that haunts them to this day.

I think that answers your question about why there is a larger percentage in the fundamentalist Muslim world. The belief that it is an intrinsic good no matter where it goes, which is a belief that has the luxury of being state-sponsored and socially acceptable.

What I'm not sure about though is what can be done because citizenship is usually unrevokable and if they were born in Britain, they should have it. Other countries would also likely refuse to take them. Trying to reduce extremism somehow would seem the closest approach, no? And then I'm not sure if the same explanation is valid for France, Germany or Belgium, basically whether it is indeed like that for every extremist out there. After all, plenty of them do come from countries like Algeria for example, and they're the ones giving the European youths ideas over the web etc., no?

One way would be to appeal to the crowd you're trying to win over. Establish that these fanatics are apostates and traitors to that religion so that the isolated Muslim communities can adopt this perception. Choosing words like "terrorist" for headlines only furthers insecurity, fear, and victimhood narratives. Think about it, the word now has become synonymous with derogatory terms that shouldn't even be at the same level. Imagine if that word was replaced by "mass murderer" or "apostate?" What glory would there be in 'martyrdom' then?

It might be a dishonest approach to some, but it's a compromise and might save lives.

[spmetla]

One way would be to appeal to the crowd you're trying to win over. Establish that these fanatics are apostates and traitors to that religion so that the isolated Muslim communities can adopt this perception. Choosing words like "terrorist" for headlines only furthers insecurity, fear, and victimhood narratives. Think about it, the word now has become synonymous with derogatory terms that shouldn't even be at the same level. Imagine if that word was replaced by "mass murderer" or "apostate?" What glory would there be in 'martyrdom' then?

It might be a dishonest approach to some, but it's a compromise and might save lives.

You can use those words if you like but it would likely have very little effect. Part of the problem lies with the ability today to insulate oneself from the outside world. It's too easy to go on the internet and find people you choose to self-identify with. Every little sub-culture today is able to find all it's other members via internet and feel that there's nothing wrong with them but instead find a caring community that blames the rest of society for not being like that particular subculture. This applies to many things beyond terrorism too like anti-vaccinations, general conspiracy theories and so on. You can't win an argument with people that refute all your terms and facts and prefer their interpretation of whatever other sources.
The Afghans Army folks I worked with use those words all the time in their propaganda against the Taliban together with videos of converted Taliban etc... and it only won over a few people, not the quantities that matter though if a single life can be saved I guess it is worth it. Not to mention it'd be a strange cross over from church/state in most Western countries if they start to define what is apostasy when they don't have a state religion.

It is a very difficult conundrum of how can we win over dis-enfranchised young men. Probably would be better to point out a way in our society in which they can be 'real men' to confirm their masculinity that working a minimum wage job doesn't provide. The people that would rather be thugs or gangsters instead of working a 'lame job' are equally as dangerous as those with extreme religious convictions.

I see it often enough in the US, people have their redneck pride. Young men don't want to go to school and be yuppies, they'd rather be lumberjacks, fishermen, cowboys or something else simple and 'manly.' Mechanized work doesn't make it easy for these people though who are more likely to just fall into alcoholism, drugs, and illicit under the table work that eventually turns criminal. This is part of the reason that women are becoming the larger percentage in colleges. Studying to be a librarian, nurse, bank teller, etc... are unmanly and therefore not to be pursued. The military which probably used to be the destination for these people has too high standards with too much discipline and so on to appeal.