To think we should note how quickly the media suggests the causes of attrocities?

[JeremyCunt]

First, and above all, my thoughts are with all those affected by the terrible events in Belgium. I'm so very sorry this has happened.

I think it is notable how quickly the mainstream media suggests who is behind it (this started even before the event - "expect 'revenge attacks' " etc). Facts simply cannot be adequately known at this stage. Certainly there's been no time for any thorough/impartial investigation (not that the impartiality element is likely to ever happen). And yet we're being led quite quickly to certain conclusions ("The attacks come four days after Salah Abdeslam, the main fugitive in the Paris attacks, was seized in Brussels" states the BBC). I'm making no comment about the veracity of these conclusions, but I think they're yet another demonstration of how easy we - the populus - are to lead.

There is nothing idiotic in saying that Islamic terrorists are not representative of Muslims. It's so insulting to suggest that Muslims have to somehow react differently to terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists than other people do. It makes a division. It suggests that the average Muslim has a degree of ownership on the terrorists actions.

Many British Isis fighters are converts. This is not a Muslim problem, this is a murderous-bastards-needing-a-cause-problem.

British Muslim leaders condem the attacks

5pillarsuk.com/2016/03/22/muslim-leaders-condemn-brussels-attacks/

In an ideal world they shouldn't have to as there wouldn't be terrorist attacks.

But in a practical world - it's the least that can be done to distance a vast community from a relatively small violent minority.

By condemning it at least they show a position - imagine what would be said if they didn't say anything at all? It would be seen either as silent consent or apathy, that is what would cause more division.

Also many of the British Isis fighters are not converts, that also goes for all the other European fighters who have fled to Isis.

Can anyone think of a solution to IS recruitment in this country? I wish I could. But in the absence of one, I just think drawing a line, making a 'them and us' - even if it is to create a sort of universal condemnation is possibly only going to make things worse.

There is brainwashing going on, clearly, there are people like CAGE but I can't see how making people entirely disassociated with these acts, publicly denounce them is going to help.

As IPity said, it's not like Daesh is going to listen to your average Muslim and decide to stop what they're doing.

Well is a multi faceted problem, you can't lay all the blame on Islam/Muslims as a hole, just the same as you can't lay the blame entirely on 'the west', the same goes for being poorly educated or recent immigrants.

I'm failing to see why asking for a separation is going to make things worse, these people may not be representative of the Muslim community, but it needs input from the Muslim community to help combat it, no

Can anyone think of a solution to IS recruitment in this country?

Yep, you cut the limbs off the beast. The problem is that if you attempt to do that, there will be a series of "terrorist attacks" in Britain to try and stop you.

Look at what has happened today. We've seen an "Islamist terror attack" in Brussels, the heart of the EU, only a few days after a tentative EU deal with Turkey to arrest migrant flows into Europe in return for visa-free travel for certain categories of Turkish citizenry. Interestingly, Turkey was hit last Saturday by the same "terrorist" grouping in Istanbul.

Indeed, one of the most interesting things about "Islamist terror attacks" are when they occur and when they don't. Another very interesting thing to consider is not who the victims are, but who they aren't. And then there are the methods employed: to be blunt, suicide bombings have certain tactical advantages.

It all adds together to support the substantial body of evidence that indicates "Islamist terrorists" are proxy forces employed by certain wealthy, but low population, countries or ruling parties within those countries in order to advance their geo-strategic goals.

It's also pretty clear that the vast majority of the Muslim population in the West does not realise this could be the case. But that is hardly surprising, as the way it has been done is very clever. Through the subtle subversion of a religion, stupid domestic policies on the part of many countries in the world, and constant propaganda messages of victimhood shrouded in a pseudo-religious garb, agents of these "proxy force" countries have not only managed to create a self-recruiting movement across the globe that acts, essentially, as a fifth column, but they have also created the conditions by which the people around these recruited individuals no longer have the psychological clarity to pose certain questions, nor can they perceive that something really rather alarming is going on.

Indeed, these agents have been so successful in their efforts, they even have globally-privileged idiots traveling thousands of miles to clean toilets and provide cannon fodder, and they pay them less than they had to twenty years ago.

It's so insulting to suggest that Muslims have to somehow react differently to terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists than other people do
My DH job involved visitng a lot of Asian businesses in Bradford at teh time of the 9/11 attacks and many, many 'ordinary' Muslims were openly rejoicing

I was watching it all live, and long before the OP even posted this, IS had claimed responsibility. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are pretty good that it is a duck.

When your religion is directly responsible for over 90% of the terrorism in the world

Utter nonsense. In the US, for instance, the FBI has stated that over 94% of terrorist attacks are carried out by non-Muslims; there have in fact been more attacks carried out there by Jews, yet no-one makes this sort of statement about Jews. In Europe, the percentage of terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims is 2%.

How are they measuring terrorism though in those statistics? I have seen similar quoted where sending a nasty letter qualified.

Yes I think Islamic attacks are responsible for more deaths.

Anyway. Just wanted to say that I am capable of listening to news and not necessarily believing everything that is said.

There are ancient rivalries that hark back to The Crusades. These are now being resurrected.

Islam is a medieval belief system operating in the modern world.

Well interesting the first two suggestions I saw for yesterday's murders were the PKK!

Quite why the Kurds would want to be blowing up Belgians I don't know.

But anyway, IS have claimed responsibility, as most people would have expected.

elementary what a load of bollocks. you like saying the word jews don't you.....

Islam is a medieval belief system operating in the modern world

Much the same could be said about any of the major religions TBF.

The other world religions have mostly moved on. They've changed and adapted in order to function within a modern world. You get some who are fanatical and unpleasant and who cause local difficulties, but I think Islam is asserting itself in ways that are different from the others.

You're right Rooster, I meant that Islamic terrorists are not representative of Muslims.

However, I didn't say that it was mainly staffed by converts I just said that IS form of dogma appeals to some not brought up within the muslim community, and that as the majority of the Muslim community do not become terrorists perhaps the root of the problem might be greater than just Muslims needing to do more to publicly denounce terrorism.

I didn't put it well.

Not really Louche. Yes, many religions have tenets which are archaic but their followers generally don't apply them literally in the modern world. Many followers of Islam take the koran literally and lets not forget it is a 6th century text. And the koran is prescriptive not descriptive (as is most of the old and new testaments).

Werksallhourz

I think your analysis is spot on. Back when I was doing my degree (War Studies) there was this constant ongoing debate on defining terrorism as somehow separate from other military actions. I argued pretty much for what you have just done; That terrorist forces are always supported, covertly or otherwise, by a state that benefits from their actions. It makes no sense to consider them a separate military phenomenon, except to permit our governments to continue to accept bribes (in all but name) from the very same hostile states. It's madness - they are so desperate to avoid admitting we're in a real, genuine war against our actual enemies because they fear those enemies will stop giving them money!

Good points, Werks and Meph. Spot on that Western nations including the UK need (and support) these attrocities, in order to maintain public support for the power/resources/finance-motivated "wars" they pursue.

To clarify, I don't think "we" (the public) in Western nations "need" these attrocities, but the people who most benefit (in finance, influence and resources) from the wars need them.

This mentality is exactly why I won't be taking part in any marches anytime soon. I refuse to apologise for something I did not do.

These evil people are directly following many of the instructions set out in your "holy" books. Can you not see the problem here?

as the majority of the Muslim community do not become terrorists perhaps the root of the problem might be greater than just Muslims needing to do more to publicly denounce terrorism.
I agree with you, but Muslims making public demonstrations would be a very good start. And it would be a repudiation of the accusation that all Muslims are potential terrorists.
When Blair dragged us into war there were demonstrations up and down the country.
Why can't we see Muslims marching with 'Not In My Name' placards?

What does a Muslim look like?