Massacre in Paris - a dozen newspeople shot

Parent Cafe
321

I understand what people are thinking here, but two questions jumped out at me:

  1. Why does anyone expect another to do their hard work? Specifically, in this case, why would anyone expect another to take a bullet for them?

The Muslim terrorists are wantonly targeting and attacking symbols and people who represent and practice Western values; they want to change the West because they do not like it. The West represents 90%+ of their targets. In contrast, non-radical Muslims in general, are not targets.

However, the terrorists also threaten and openly kill Muslims who do not follow along OR try to stop them. ISIS is executing, kidnapping and wiping towns off of the map of people who do not succumb to their view of Islam. They also have their followers in foreign countries, such as England, France, Belgium, Netherlands, and Sweden, threaten and kill Muslims who actively speak out against them.

People seem to forget that these non-radical Muslims still have to live somewhere, and it is not too difficult to deduce that it is much safer to keep quiet and live your life rather than to make yourself target, when you currently are not a target. And the no-go zones in London, France, Belgium, Sweden etc. are really the only live-able areas for non-radical Muslims to fully practice Islam. The trade-off to live there is they do not stir up the water. The “no free lunch” paradigm again rears its head.

My point is it is expecting whiskey from a bottle of wine if one thinks non-radical Muslims are going to risk their families to stop attacks on your family. It really comes down to non-radical Muslims do not see radical Muslims as their responsibility. And really, why should they? They did not cause the terrorists to be who they are, and they are not the targets of the terrorists. Therefore, why be stupid and take on a responsibility and make your family a target?

Bottom line, no one is going to make themselves a target for you if they do not see the issues of defense and protection as his responsibility. Non-radicals do not see protecting the West as their cause celeb, so not sure why people think they will be the solution.

  1. Why are there expectations placed on non-radical Muslims, which are not placed on or expected of other religions and cultures? This is the more vexing question to me. To give context:

A. Has there been any expectation that getting rid of the Westboro Baptist must be rooted within Christian culture and community? No.

B. Was there an expectation that eliminating the Nazis had to be rooted within non-radical German culture and community? No.

C. Search history, there many more examples of the above.

Realistically, someone or something can only be an effective remedy inside a community if it first understands the problem and thinks it has some responsibility for it. Non-radical Muslims do not meet those two criteria in the least: they do not understand the terrorists and their version of Islam, and non-radicals do not see themselves as responsible for the terrorists. So, it is difficult to understand why anyone in the West thinks non-radicals would see it worthy to make themselves a target of terrorists’ wrath, just to try and save Western people from attacks. I just do not see that ever happening.

Pretty much the only way to stop terrorism is for the targets of terrorism not to bow to it in any form and to make it essentially ineffectual. Anything else seems like a pipe dream.

Recipe for how to defeat terrorism illustrated in 75 seconds:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3f1TALov9Mw

322

Well, you lost me here. I must have read a thousand times that what allowed the Nazis to take power was that more moderate Germans didn’t do anything–and that they should have.

323

I go further: it is always the responsibility of a group to object to the extremists, particularly those who cause harm. Much of the world is ruled by small gangs with guns because they successfully intimidate those around them. There can not and will not be some “deus ex machina”, a God from a machine (appearing on stage in a play), to make things right. It is nearly always up to you to take care of yourselves.

One huge problem is so many Muslims come from countries where people are largely powerless, where the legal system is heavily stacked or non-functional, where there is a deeply rooted cultural belief that nothing you do will change anything. That is one appeal of fundamentalism: it is action for people who come from cultures where there is a long history of inaction. And thus it is no surprise that Muslim activists take on other Muslims with as much or more virulence.

I could draw this analogy further: look at phony industries we found in Iraq, facades of companies producing only because the government had them do it. I could do the same with nearly all these countries: not just conservatism or adherence to traditional values but an individual belief that you can do nothing about anything. This coincides with religion, but it is also separate.

I think we should move past the idea that all cultures are somehow equally valid. They aren’t. I’m not offering a defense of “Protestant work ethic” and that nonsense - because people in other cultures work hard, etc. - but I abhor the negatives about cultures. This, btw, includes our own with its obsessions over guns and so on.

I note that I’m far from alone in this, that this is a major intellectual topic in the Arab/Muslim world which looks at the success of Europe, particularly at the success of Israel, and says “WTF? We’re doing something wrong.” I wish more would take that attitude rather than blind hatred.

324

But if the “radical” Muslims win their battle to eradicate the Western cultures and impose their version of Islam on the world, then these non-radical groups are also subject. According to your idea, doesn’t that mean that these “non-radical” groups have no problem with that? And if they have no problem with it, are they not sympathetic, if only passively? And doesn’t their passive support allow the radicals to hide among them and foment active support?

325

“1. Why does anyone expect another to do their hard work? Specifically, in this case, why would anyone expect another to take a bullet for them?”

I am not expecting them to take a bullet for me, and therein lies one of the biggest myths of all this, that the only victims of Muslim radicalism are the non Muslim countries, and that is a gigantic false premise. 130 kids were killed in a school bombing and shooting in Pakistan, these were Muslim children killed by radical muslims who have decided that Mohammad wanted everyone as stupid and ignorant as they are. Boko Harum is not targeting only non Muslims, they terrorize other muslims as well, they kill anyone they don’t like or don’t think is believing as they do. Heck, radical muslims kill other radical muslims, there is evidence that ISIS has killed members of Al Qaeda, and most assuredly, if they had the chance ISIS and Al Qaeda would kill Iranians or Iraqi Shiites, because they are automatically apostate, they would cut the head off of Iran’s Ayatollah simply because he is Shiite, even though his beliefs aren’t that far from that of ISIS.

And as someone else said, do the moderate Muslims expect that if people like ISIS are allowed to win, that they will be left alone? With the exception of maybe people living in isolated areas, do you think that for example the typical Egyptian or Iraqi or Syrian doesn’t know what the threat of the extremists are? We aren’t talking people living in the stone age, they know what the radicals represent, they know they won’t be left alone, the signs are all around them, non radical muslims are being killed in droves, do you think they have no access to news or information on it?

"2. Why are there expectations placed on non-radical Muslims, which are not placed on or expected of other religions and cultures? This is the more vexing question to me. To give context:

A. Has there been any expectation that getting rid of the Westboro Baptist must be rooted within Christian culture and community? No."

Are you kidding me? Talk to Christians who are not evangelicals, and what people of faith routinely hear is how as Christians can they sit back and let groups like Westboro Baptist or the Moral majority or Focus on Family hijack their faith? Especially once the GOP aligned itself with the religious right and we suddenly heard all this crap about the US being a 'Christian Nation", and we started seeing pushes to overturn bans on school prayer, where thanks to fundamentalist Christians we even have a debate about teaching evolution in the schools, teaching creationism as science, pushing an agenda to have gays legally sanctioned and so forth…and look what in fact happened. Members of other Christian communities have fought back, when the Mormons and the Knights of Columbus spent 40 million dollars trying to get proposition 8 passed in California, along with evangelical Christian groups, other churches and denominations spoke out against it, lobbied, and also in the drive to overturn prop 8 stated that religious belief in marriage was not affected by the legal right of gays to marry, and more importantly, how could a law be put in place based on the religious beliefs of conservative Christians, when many Christians believe same sex marriage is compatible with their faith…

And Christians, liberal Christians, moderate Christians, hear themselves lumped in with the right wing Christians, the fundamentalists, are told their faith is backward, intolerant, bigoted, mean, hateful and so forth, and they recognize that it hurts their faith, their ability to have people understand they aren’t like that, and many such churches spend a lot of time and effort reaching out to those hurt by the fundamentalists and others like them…among other things, the fact that same sex marriage despite the efforts of the GOP, will pretty soon be legal in all 50 states is testament to what duty Christians felt they had. Catholics, despite what the leaders of their church claim, worked to have this happen, as did Jews and liberal Christian denominations, every time a mainstrain church took one more step towards having LGBT people as full congregants, it drove a nail in the power of the right (who, like the radical muslims, represent a small portion of the community). When Westboro Baptist does something outrageous, whatever it is, they receive scorn from people of good faith, Christian churches speak out and say they are an abomination, and people show up where westboro is and counter protest.

It is how things change, Westboro Baptist is a fringe group, and more importantly, as a national force the religious right has been put in its place, in large part because these groups have been attacked in print, they have been publicized, and especially among young people what the fundamentalist Christians and their political alliance with the GOP stood with has turned them off, one of the prime reasons that less than a third of young people identify with the GOP, despite being attracted by some of their other ideas, is because of the religious right and the GOP’s social stances. When the GOP brought the religious right to prominence, gave them a political voice, it led to other Christians (and non Christians) to speak out against them, publicize what they stood for, and instead of being this potent force to ‘reChristianize America’, it has gone back to a power base that is localized, and even that is marginalized.
(more)

326

“B. Was there an expectation that eliminating the Nazis had to be rooted within non-radical German culture and community? No.”

That actually is a good example, and it highlights the very reason that it should come from within. The Nazis never enjoyed widespread popularity in Germany, an online friend who is a PHD student in history in Germany said that for the most part the German upper classes didn’t like Hitler (other than the industrialists, who liked Hitler for breaking the trade unions and getting rid of the socialists), theirs was not a majority coalition. As far as was there an expectation for the Germans to take care of the Nazis, one of the most common themes in the 1930’s, when it became obvious what the Nazis stood for, was the rest of the world saying “That is an internal German problem”…

Martin Neimollers famous statement sums up the problem with your idea, his famous “When they came for the communists, I did nothing because I was not a communist, when they came for the Jews I did nothing for I was not a Jew…”, and what he is saying is exactly what a lot of other people are saying, that the Germans had a duty and failed and in the end, they destroyed themselves. In that sense, this is a good analogy.

On the other hand, Nazi ideology was a phenomenon of the Nazi nation state, which Islamic extremism is not, Islamic extremism knows no state, and in the end, what destroyed Nazi ideology was in destroying the German state and killing its leaders. It was relatively self contained, but with Islamic extremism, who do you kill when it is so, as everyone says, spread out and non centralized? We cannot do what we did with Nazi Germany, where we occupied Germany, and literally stamped out the Nazi ideology via a process called ‘de-nazification’…but how could the rest of the world do that with Al Qaeda or ISIL or whatever?

Not to mention that had the German people or the German military done it themselves, it would have saved the total destruction of Germany. To do what you are saying, to use the Nazi ideology, would mean literally a world war, pitting the anti extremists against the extremists, and the likely scenario is that even if possible (dubious), a lot of innocents, muslim and alike, would die in the process.

C. Search history, there many more examples of the above.

In history, the reality is that insane movements, of any kind, end up being driven out of popularity, having outsiders contain an ideology doesn’t work all that well. Communism as an example collapsed because as an economic system it was untenable when it had to compete with the capitalist world, in the end its fall happened from within, you can argue the cold war had something to do with it, and it did, but the reality is people inside realized it wasn’t working and basically gave up, for all intents and purposes, internal issues ended up breaking it.

“Realistically, someone or something can only be an effective remedy inside a community if it first understands the problem and thinks it has some responsibility for it. Non-radical Muslims do not meet those two criteria in the least: they do not understand the terrorists and their version of Islam, and non-radicals do not see themselves as responsible for the terrorists. So, it is difficult to understand why anyone in the West thinks non-radicals would see it worthy to make themselves a target of terrorists’ wrath, just to try and save Western people from attacks. I just do not see that ever happening.”

I think that is neither realistic and it is self contradicting. If non radical muslims don’t understand the terrorists, then why would they fear speaking out against them? More importantly, if what you are saying is true, then how can non radical muslims, as they do after every horrible event perpetuated by the radicals, say “that is not Islam”? You can’t have it both ways, either they know what the radicals stand for and are in fear of it, or they don’t in which case, how can they say what the radicals believe is not Islam if they don’t understand what it is?

And your last statement is part of the problem, the problem isn’t terrorism alone, it is the ideology that is the problem , a nd it is why the non radical muslims have the most skin in the game. Radical Islam wants a world where everyone is forced to believe like they do, live by their rules (whatever and wherever they got them, true Islam or not), the violence is a symptom of it, not the root cause. The reason it has to come from within the non radical muslims is the only way to truly prevent the terrorism, and more importantly, the dark ages, brutal repression that fundamentalism represents, you don’t kill that will bullets, you don’t kill that by telling terrorist you won’t win, it is when the majority of the muslim world realize that the terrorists pose a threat to them and to anyone who just wants to lead their lives. There is a gentler parallel to this, when it looked like right wing Christian fundamentalists were going to be given sway in this country, the rest of the country spoke up and fought back every attempt to create the Christian utopia they claimed to be creating, and between the courts and legislatures, the religious right was pushed back time and again, despite their official support from politicians and such, and the supposed Christian Wave where evangelical Christianity was going to re-ignite a religious revival and so forth, has sputtered out, they have lost. Something similar needs to happen in the Muslim world, they need to recognize the threat the radicals have to them (which after all, makes the threat of terrorism pale in comparison) and they need to cut it at the source, the ideology that underlies it.

327

@‌ cobrat-
I am well aware of how the colonial powers split up areas to suit their needs, I am well aware they pitted tribal groups against each other, forced tribes to live together who hate each other, and yes, I am well aware of the factions in the Muslim world, sunnis vs Shiaa, and even Sunni versus Sunni…

One one of the reasons that Muslims themselves need to act IMO is based to a large extent of those fractures. Muslims , whether it is because of British colonial stupidity, or natural resources, are fractured, and it quite often leads to strife and killings between the groups. By far, the biggest victims of the terrorists are not in the west, it is where Sunnis kill Shiites and Shiites kill Sunnis and they both kill Sufis, or a Shiite who believes differently is killed by the Iranian Ayatollahs because of course, their version of Shia is the truth.

The fundamental issue for Muslims is coming to the realization that people have different views of what the religion is, and more importantly, that the radical muslims pose a threat to themselves, that if they are Shia, a Sunni radical would kill them without thinking, it is coming to the realization that the ideology of ‘truth faith’ is the problem, the terrorism is only a symptom of the wider problem, of a group of people deciding they have the true faith and have the right to force others, whether muslim or not, to believe as they do, or act in ways they want them to.There is no difference between bombing a newspaper that publishes a cartoon of Mohammad they don’t like, and bombing a school full of Muslim kids because they have decided Mohammad wanted everyone to be stupid, there is no difference between putting airplanes into a high rise building and kidnappping girls to be the husbands of some piece of crap cleric; there is no difference between shooting a film maker who made a documentary critical of muslims, and putting someone in jail via the legal system for publishing something deemed blasphemous, it is the fundamental notion that any religious belief is so fragile or above reproach that it cannot be mocked, talked about, criticized, drawn, whatever, and more importantly, the fundamental notion that maybe, just maybe, no faith, no variation on a faith, is the truth for all people. I am sure I will get the response that that is a western notion, that people in the Islamic world have their own beliefs, that religion and society are intertwined for them, we have no right to tell them how to live, but the reality is until that idea works its way into Muslim societies around the world, these issues are going to exist, when a government can decide what the true faith is, why shouldn’t a radical who claims the true faith be listened to? The government could be wrong, but what the governments do with Blasphemy laws is say that there is a ‘true belief’ in the first place, and the same is true of religious leaders who preach the idea of a ‘true faith’. It is what led the Catholic Church to do what they did for so many centuries, it is what led the first Protestants, the Lutherans and the Calvinists, to do the horrible things they did, and it wasn’t until the idea that maybe religious faith wasn’t the center of things that the many religious wars, killings, inquisitions and so forth died out…

And the prime reason? Quite honestly, I fear the same thing you do. Individual Muslims are not the cause of terrorism, most of them want to lead their lives in peace, but they also have to realize, as Neimoller said in his famous statement, that if they don’t act, eventually the radicals will come for them.Your analogy of the Nisei in WWII is enlightening, in that given that the actions we are talking about was Imperial Japan, which the Nisei had no control over, it was doubly unfair what happened to the Japanese Americans. More importantly, the reality was that despite being treated like enemies, Japanese Americans fought with distinction in WWII, they didn’t sit back and say “this isn’t my fight”, they recognized what both Hitler and the Imperial Japanese posed as a threat to them…and the radical muslims pose a threat to them as great or more than Hitler or Tojo did to the Nisei, the radicals are are threat to the ordinary Muslims because if they remain silent, if they don’t take the legs out of the radicals by taking the legitimacy out of their crazy beliefs, like the Nisei they will be judged for their beliefs by the radicals, and in the end they will be fighting a two front war, both with the radicals within, and with the non muslim world, if this pattern keeps up, if these radical groups keep growing, if incidents increase in both number and scope, it can unleash a tidal wave of hate and fear about Muslims that won’t be pretty,and that I fear, as much as I fear the actions of the terrorists. In such a scenario, no one ones, a lot of innocent people die quite frankly over foolishness, over the human ability to believe in something so deeply that they forget others are human, too. It stinks, but it is a reality, the passions we see today about terrorism and Islam are a small portion of what they will be if we start seeing a lot more of these incidents, and as usual, the ones most hurt will be the innocent.

It doesn’t mean that the non muslim world can do nothing to stop this, there is a lot of this that has the hands of the west in it, especially the main supporter of a lot of this, the Saudi government,or the despotic regimes we have supported, but the rest of the world can do nothing without the Islamic world cleaning house, too, understanding that as a religion, with a lot of facets, the fundamentalists pose a major threat to their beliefs, their faith, a lot more than the outside world does and that they need to fight the ideology of the radicals, take the legs out from under them, to truly solve the problem.

328

Re Post #323:

No. Non-radical groups have a huge problem with it. However, they rather they and their families are alive today in order to see tomorrow. Your immediate families death is not seen as their responsibility.

Sure.

But I ask this, for example, “Do we expect poor people in ghettoes to make themselves targets in order to culturally route out drug dealers?”

No, we do not. In fact, we train them to be just the opposite, i.e., bring as little attention to yourself as much as possible when you go about your daily lives. And further, such as in DC, the poor people are legally disarmed, so defending themselves is purposefully limited.

And this makes sense - these poor people cannot up and move and must live somewhere, so best to teach them to stay alive and to be, at least, a peaceful part of their community.

That is a big “if,” and people naturally do not think that far ahead, as a group. Really only governments and militaries with long-term objectives institute such long-term policies.

And there is the big distinction here - it is the West being attacked and killed, but currently non-radicals are just mostly threatened. It just makes no sense to make paint a bullseye on their backs, from their point-of-view.

And here is the example of what I meant expressed in real concrete. Non-radicals are busy “protecting” themselves and do not see terrorists as their responsibility to change. Impossible to change someone you are walling off, figuratively and literally, and not engaging with.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/saudi-arabia-building-great-wall-keep-out-islamic-/#ixzz3Ouh5RNrO

329

I find it kind of ironic that the Saudi’s are building a great wall to defend themselves from Islamic Radicals, when the Saudis are one of the biggest reasons for the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and radicalism in the Islamic world, besides the radical schools they build and the mosques they support, money from Saudi Arabia has been one of the prime financial backing of radical groups like Al Qaeda (put it this way, with petro dollars going into saudi arabia, only about 70% of it can be accounted for downstream, the World Bank and others track such thing)…think significant portions of that 30% aren’t going right into the hands of terrorists and such?

The Saudis never learned the lessons of history, WWI comes to mind, when the armies figured out that when they used poison gas, it was as likely to blow back over their own troops as to defeat the enemy. Saudis has spent decades and billions of dollars exporting radical Islam all over the mid east, and it has now blown back over them.

330

I see now we are addressing different historical points in the process. I believe the non-radical Muslim cultural influence and talking approach is a day late and a dollar short. Allow me explain, using Nazis as the example.

As an operating philosophy, I agree with the concept that all that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. However, there is a time when this approach is no longer effective, and that point involves weaponry.

The Nazis could possibly have been thwarted if the non-supporting Germans, who were in the majority, rose up early enough and pushed back against the philosophy. However, after the rise of the Nazi military machine the days of talking and culturally influencing were over. It was the brown shirts, death, destruction at the helm - the talking and cultural influential windows were lost and that ship had sailed, and it was now an actual physical war of which physical defeat was the only way out.

I would agree that some 50 - 70 years ago, after the carving out of states in the Middle East, there was a window for moderate, non-radical Muslims to be influential etc. However, with the rise of self-contained militant states complete with serious weapons and the capability to produce and acquire more and better weapons, we have reached a condition similar to what we had in Germany and the Nazis, i.e., only a flat-out physical defeat will be effective. And only after that physical defeat will talking and cultural influence have another window to effect continued change. Again, much like Germany culturally fights their fledging Nazis groups today.

I say this one more time - Saudia Arabia is clearly not on board with your idea that they are responsible to change ISIS or militant Islam. The Saudis realize that window has closed, and they are obviously not accepting responsibility for an ideology they themselves say they are not a part of. And thus, they are not accepting your premise that they must risk their lives for the West.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/saudi-arabia-building-great-wall-keep-out-islamic-/#ixzz3Ouh5RNrO

331

Anti-terror raid in Belgium results in deaths:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/15/world/belgium-anti-terror-operation/index.html

332

The Economist often holds opinion worth listening to as they are often right. However, on the heels of its equivocal piece on Je Suis Ahmed, this one paints a clear but disturbing picture that the deaths in Paris will ultimately be for naught in terms of addressing the real roots of the problem.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21639535-many-condemnations-some-caveats-when-nuance-hard-hear?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/whennuanceishardtohear

333

As I alluded in previous posts, this was highly predictable. In the past days, there were a great number of arrests along the border with France and activity in hotbeds of radical Islamists in Belgium. The terrorists in Paris had connections with the militants in Belgium to procure the heavy weapons used in the CH massacre.

Belgians have long known that the influx of radicals and the non-actions against the leaders who masquerade as religious leaders would come at a price. Just as the country affection for freedom of religion and freedom of education.

Police stations have been evacuated and the police forces asked to stay inside for fear of attacks. Bookstores have been “instructed” to not sell the latest edition of CH. Plenty of citizens and businesses have been threatened in the past days.

Not a pretty picture!

334

Yeah, how’s that working out for them?

335

Well, if you are suggesting that they would be better off somehow if they got themselves involved in the ongoing gang fighting and criminal activity I would have to disagree. They lie low for a reason and are notably uncooperative with law enforcement out of a justified fear for their personal safety and a desire to avoid the expected retaliation that would be coming their way. But, you can’t possibly be suggesting that. So nevermind. I must be misunderstanding something again.

336

Not well at all. And I actually agree it needs to change, so I am not advocating the status quote. I was only describing what is occuring on the ground, given current circumstances.

However, as the post #334 states, having an all out shoot-out in the inner cities is definitely not the solution, and I do think it is correct to teach moms, young kids, teenagers, etc. not to make themselves convenient targets and stay away from the gang culture. That is just common sense. And when possible, get out at the earliest convienence.

Where I differ with the government approach, like DC’s, is not making yourself a target and being able to defend yourself should coexist. I do disagree about the total disarming of the citizenry because, in that way, the government is implicitly making them easier prey because they cannot effectively defend themselves if attacked AND the criminals know this. But, being able to defend yourself can exist while keeping a low profile; it just means if attacked you have a fighting chance instead of being sacrificial lambs for the slaughter, as they are now.

The inner city problem and the Middle East problem are not too distant from each other. Both groups do not see themselves as part of the larger Western culture, albeit for different reasons. And it is just as much wishful thinking to tell black people who disavow and do not understand “thug” culture that it is their responsibility to clean it up, as much it is wishful to expect non-radical Muslims to accept the clean up of extremists, who they also disavow and do not understand.

In both cases, each of these extreme cultures must be faced head on, isolated, and wiped out, as no talking at this point will change these entrenched ideologies. To think we can talk and influence our way out if these two issues is wishful thinking applicable only for academic halls and Neville Chamberlain-like diplomats and would not represent living in the real world.

337

I believe the average adherent living in a western country has a social responsibility to call out the mosques. The ones where these young men are being radicalized. For their own self-interest, if not for that of their religion.

I don’t believe Western governments should shy away from dealing with this from a position of force, either, but the past decades suggest they’re hamstrung by PC, which is exploited by organizations like CAIR that bitterly protest any increased attention as profiling. Those same average adherents might find it extremely productive to protest just as bitterly that CAIR doesn’t represent their views as to whether increased attention is needed or discriminatory.

Governments in the Middle East (those comprised of peace loving Muslims, the vast majority) should deal with the funding flowing from their own citizens to support Western radicalization/terrorism. To do any less, would suggest they’re supremely disinterested in what professed fellow practitioners of the faith get up to when they’re on holiday.

338

I find the comments about US cities remarkably obtuse. I don’t mean to offend but do you have experience working with the many, many, many groups that actively fight violence and drugs? I do. “Actively” runs the gamut from groups providing alternatives - such as sports, chess, you name it - to neighborhood watches with patrols. And lots of people have guns. This is America: people have guns. People aren’t cowed into submission in the cities. Most are simply trying to make money to support themselves and their families.

As to suggestions about governments in the Middle East? Seriously and I mean this: read Arabic/regional press in translation. Here’s a taste from the last few days:

  1. Algerian newspapers started a "We are Muhammed" campaign amid calls to execute the Charlie Hedbo cartoonists. (The surviving ones, that is.) Big phrase is that the latest cartoon, showing an unlabeled maybe Muhammed tearful over the murders in Paris, are the real terror attacks.
  2. Rallies in Pakistan calling for the death of Charlie Hedbo employees. Same crap about the real terror attacks being the cartoons.
  3. Saw on NBC Muslims in Paris talking about "provocations", again saying publishing a picture justifies murder. And teachers in Muslim suburbs say they have been threatened for carrying out the mandated "talk about the murders" sessions and there are reports (unverified as far as I know) some kids who expressed support for Charlie Hedbo have been attacked by other kids.
  4. Islamists have started a twitter campaign called #fightforhim, meaning fight for Muhammed against the blasphemers. Other twitter tags are worse.
  5. I have lots of examples of Muslim clerics from across the region into India praising the attacks. A Muslim politician in India offered the killers a reward.
  6. Turkish President and megalomaniac Erdogan implied it was staged by the French and blamed them for their provocations. The Mayor of Ankara says the Mossad did it. Various Turkish politicians are claiming it was all staged.
  7. The Iranian reaction is in some way the hardest to take because they are far more adept at twisting language. As in the President denounces all terror attacks while the Foreign Minister talks about "provocations". I'll quote these words from Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, one of the top people in Iran:

“We strongly denounce the terrorist attack in France. We believe that Islam does not permit the killing of innocent people, whether in Paris, in Syria, in Iraq, in Yemen, in Pakistan, or in Afghanistan. The question is who is behind the killing of all those innocent people in those countries, and who provides them with weapons. It is the American dollars, the English pounds, and the EU euros. You are the ones who have secretly nurtured these monsters and serpents. Those who sow the wind shall reap the storm. These terrorists feed from your own hands. These terrorists feed off the political support given by you and your allies. The solution is for you to cease these Satanic deeds. Now that the soap of terror has touched your bodies, you should know that the path that you have been taking for a decade, in which you assist the terrorists, is a mistaken path, and you should desist from this path, if you are truthful when you talk about defending human rights and humanity.”

In other words, do not expect any change from the Muslim world. If you do, you are delusional.

339

What I’d prefer to see happen and what I believe is actually going to pass don’t resemble each other at all.

340

Or, it might be delusional to assume there is one Muslim world, when the wall being built by Saudi Arabia is clearly indicating there are now at least two distinct Muslim worlds.

And it might further delusional in thinking you have some right to tell non-radical Muslims what their responsibilities are. The obvious question many non-radicals may have for you, “Who the heck are you to tell us what is our problem? It is your butt they are currently kicking, not mine.”

This is akin to the black people in my company laughing at the fact that because they are rich that there are people who think they have some overriding special obligation to go and help black people in ghettoes. Well, that too is delusional because these black people I know never lived in ghettoes, have no understanding of the thought processes of people in ghettoes, do not talk like them, live a completely different lifestyle and politics, and want nothing to do with the risk and dangers of even being in those areas. In short, it is really ethnocentric for others to think just because they have similar skin hues that somehow the poor black people are their problem and subsequent obligation. That is just plain silly thinking.

My point is that it is very easy to sit back and tell non-radicals they must solve our problem, i.e., terrorists attacks on the West, because you look at their world through a singular lens, aka the Muslim world. However, do not be surprised if what you think is their responsibility is not the same as what they think is their responsibility, especially if they have a multifaceted view of their world that is different than your view.