11
   

Studying Europe's Muslim terrorists

 
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 04:27 am
@Deckland,

I don't think I can disagree with that.

However, there are some aspects of Sharia Law which are refreshingly straighforward:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/28/iran-acid-attack-sharia-law
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 04:37 am
@McTag,
Qisas is indeed an Arabic term, equivalent to the Mosaic ayin takhat ayin (Exodus 21:23"27).

As part of the criminal law, it is enforced today in (most) countries with follow the Sharia, like -as quoted- Iran, and in Irak, Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan, ...
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2008 12:16 am
There's an interesting study going on about Muslims in European cities (from the UK it's Leicester and Waltham Forest).

Quote:
A number of monitoring reports, covering Amsterdam, Berlin, Paris and Leicester, are currently being finalised in their draft form. Each report will explore the diversity amongst the Muslim communities in the city, and examine in depth the situation in one neighbourhood with a significant Muslim population. The reports will also seek to identify shared concerns city residents may have regardless of ethnic or religious background.

Amsterdam and Berlin will be the first two cities to hold roundtable discussions (early 2009) followed by the others shortly after. The roundtable discussions aim to bring key stakeholders and relevant government and civil society actors together to review the reports before final publication. All 11 reports, as well as an analytical overview of the 11 cities, will be published before the end of 2009.
0 Replies
 
Pomstar
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 11:26 am
@nimh,
Imo we shouldn't even be using the word Jihad. The terrorists use that word thinking that somehow what they are doing is holy and that it's what god or allah or whatever wants... If we start calling them Jihadis, are we not just... Enforcing their beliefs or something, you know?
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  0  
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 06:13 am
Seems to be that it should be very easy to prevent islamic terrorism, at least for the US. Point a couple of ICBM's at Mecca, and warn the islamic world that if they put anything on, the US will turn it's most holy city into a radioactive crater.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 03:14 pm
Interesting article in Newsweek, dispelling the myth of "Eurabia":

Quote:
Why Fears Of A Muslim Takeover Are All Wrong
Analyzing the forecasts of an emerging 'Eurabia,' hostile to America and western values.
By William Underhill | NEWSWEEK
Published Jul 11, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Jul 20, 2009

To listen to Europe's far right, it would be easy to conclude that the continent is poised for another round of bitter conflict with a centuries-old adversary. "The first Islamic invasion of Europe was stopped at [the battle of] Poitiers in 732. The second was halted at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Now we have to stop the current stealth invasion," argues Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom, which claims that Islamic doctrine encourages terrorism.

It's rabble-rousing stuff. But underlying Wilders's polemic is an argument shared by many more mainstream right-leaning thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic. Europe, its will sapped by secularism and anything-goes tolerance, has allowed decades of mass immigration without serious challenge. Too feeble to defend their own values, governments have been ready to appease Muslim opinion and must expect the worst. The argument has been gaining ground for some time"fed by alarmist and highly speculative projections from writers like the Canadian Mark Steyn, author of the bestselling America Alone"that immigration and high birthrates could mean that Muslims will make up 40 percent of Europe's population by 2025. Similar and very public warnings have come from American diplomat Timothy Savage, who claimed that forecasts of a Muslim majority in Western Europe by midcentury "may not be far off the mark" if present trends continue, which would heighten the risk of conflict. The British historian Niall Ferguson has written that "a youthful Muslim society to the south and east of the Mediterranean is poised to colonize"the term is not too strong"a sene-scent Europe." And the American journalist Christopher Caldwell forecasts that an "anchored" and "confident" Islam looks likely to impose its will on an "insecure" and "relativistic" European culture. The gloomiest commentators, including Steyn and the conservative Ameri-can writer Tony Blankley, talk of an emerging "Eurabia" hostile to American interests and in thrall to Islam.

[... ... ...]

For the number of Muslims to outnumber non-Muslims by midcentury, it would require either breeding on a scale rarely seen in history or for immigration to continue at a pace that's now politically unacceptable. More likely, new controls will slow Muslim immigration. The birthrate for Muslim immigrants is also likely to continue to decline, as it has tended to do, with greater affluence and better health care. There is no Europewide data available, but one study says fertility rates among Turkish-born women in the Netherlands fell from 3.2 in 1990 to 1.9 in 2005, barely above the figure for native-born Dutch. Over the same period, the equivalent figure for Moroccan-born women in the Netherlands dropped from 4.9 to 2.9. Also, fertility rates are edging upward in some Northern European countries, which would offset some of the Muslim growth. Bottom line: given the number of variables, demographers are loath to make predictions about the number of Muslims in Europe in the years to come. "You would almost have to make it up," says Carl Haub, the senior demographer at the Population Reference Bureau in Washington. And the idea of a Muslim majority any time soon? "Absolutely absurd."

Moreover, the myth of Eurabia implies the existence of a united Islam, a bloc capable of collective and potentially dangerous action. The truth is that there are no powerful Muslim political movements in Europe, either continentwide or at the national level, and the divisions that separate Muslims worldwide, most obviously between Sunnis and Shiites, are apparent in Europe as well. Each major nation in Europe has drawn Muslim immigrants from distinct regions of the Islamic world, often former colonies, with different traditions and outlooks. A British Muslim from Pakistan would struggle to communicate with a French Muslim from Algeria. A second-generation Muslim from Turkey living in Germany will have little in common with a newly arrived Moroccan across the border in Belgium. Sharp differences exist even within national frontiers. In Germany, more than one in 10 Muslims are Alawites, who aren't even recognized as coreligionists by the more orthodox.

In areas of personal morality, attitudes vary markedly, too. One recent Gallup poll found that more than 30 percent of French Muslims were ready to accept homosexuality, compared with zero in Britain. Almost half of French Muslims believed sex between unmarried people was morally acceptable, compared with 27 percent of German Muslims. And violent zealotry is for the tiny minority: polls repeatedly reaffirm that Muslims overwhelmingly disapprove of terrorism. In some countries, the mood is broadly secular. "The majority of Muslims in France are, in fact, decoupled from their religion. They just blend into an amorphous mass of brown or black people," says Ali Allawi, the former Iraqi defense minister and author of the The Crisis of Islamic Civilization. Jochen Hippler, a German political scientist at the University of Duisburg-Essen, says he has had young Turks come up to him to ask what Islam is all about. "They have lost any connection with the religion of their parents and grandparents," he says. A recent government survey showed that 40 percent of Iranians living in Germany identified themselves as having no religion, as did 23 percent of North Africans. In the Netherlands, the proportion of Muslims who regularly attend the mosque"27 percent"is lower than the proportion of Protestants who go to church.

For that matter, there's little evidence that Muslims themselves see any contradiction between allegiance to the state and their religious faith. An overwhelming majority of Muslims in France and Germany told Gallup's pollsters that they believed Muslims were loyal to their country. British and German Muslims were more likely than their countrymen to say they were confident of the judicial system and financial institutions and the honesty of elections. It seems that if Europe is in the throes of revolution, many of the supposed combatants appear strangely content with the established order.

© 2009
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 03:39 pm

I went to a Turkish restaurant this evening...quite good, not bad at all.

And, we have booked a holiday in Turkey for October.

Whey am I telling you this? I haven't the slightest idea. Maybe it's the wine- not bad wine for a muslim country.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 04:15 pm
@McTag,
We have a couple of good Afghan restaurants here in Sunnyvale. Remember?
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Jul, 2009 12:46 pm
@cicerone imposter,

I certainly do.

One of our fascist (British National Party) politicians was interviewed on TV this morning, and made to look most uncomfortable. They are trying to present themselves as an alternative political choice for the floating voter, without success. But because of shrinkage in the mainstream vote at the European elections, they have made gains.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 04:21 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
quoting the article, not Walter

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Too feeble to defend their own values, governments have been ready to appease Muslim opinion and must expect the worst. The argument has been gaining ground for some time"fed by alarmist and highly speculative projections from writers like the Canadian Mark Steyn,


I knew that nutty Mark Steyn had shown up elsewhere.
0 Replies
 
puzzledperson
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 30 Oct, 2015 06:57 am
@xingu,
One problem with the analysis of your source: whereas he documents that the vast majority of terrorist attacks in the European Union were not Islamist in nature, he also states that except in rare cases these were "not designed to kill".

Islamist terrorism may be comparatively rare in the EU but it accounts for the overwhelming majority of casualties (both fatalities and injuries) precisely because it is designed to kill.

The Pew Center (certainly not an anti-Islamic organization) published a survey of American Muslims in 2013. To the extent that American and European Muslims can be culturally compared, the survey is somewhat transferable.

One percent of American Muslims said that suicide bombings and other violence against civilians is "often justified", while another seven percent said this is "sometimes justified". (The other survey question responses offered were "rarely" and "never" so it's clear that "sometimes" indicates a greater frequency than "rarely").

In the 2010 census, there were 2.4 million American Muslims. That means 24,000 American residents who consider violence against civilians in the name of Islam to be "often" justified; and if we add the additional seven percent, the number who consider this either often or sometimes (more than rarely) justified rises to 192,000. That represents a substantial risk for radicalization.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-app-a/
0 Replies
 
puzzledperson
 
  0  
Reply Fri 30 Oct, 2015 07:26 am
@nimh,
The terms "jihadist" and "terrorist" should not be used interchangeably, though they can overlap.

Jihadists generally want to wage war, which is to say to engage in combat in military theaters on behalf of Islam. They may sometimes conduct suicide bombings but these are usually in pursuit of military goals (e.g. breaking through defenses to allow follow up penetration by guerrilla fighters, or killing enemy soldiers or security personnel).

Even avowed terrorist organizations like al Qaeda and their affiliates spend most of their time conducting military jihad.

A number of the lone wolf attackers in Europe who attacked civilian targets were unable to pursue their first preference, military jihad in Syria or Iraq, because their passports had been confiscated.

Governments would do better in most cases to encourage this sort of travel. This gets them out of the country and into a theater of war where high attrition rates (especially for foreign fighters, who often are used as disposable fodder to drive vehicle borne IEDs) are likely to kill them.

Those who survive will stay abroad fighting if that proves to be appealing; and those disillusioned are unlikely to carry out attacks as agents of the organization they abandoned. In any case, it is easier to flag their (still valid) passport to detain and question them if they attempt to return, than it is to spot a European jihadist with a new, clean passport under a false identity (whether stolen or manufactured).


0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/13/2021 at 04:08:00