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.

unlucky83 is quite right.
Decent, peaceful Muslims need to be playing a high profile role in condemning the atrocities. It has to come from inside.

It has to come from inside.

This is a good article by a Pakistani journalist:

Brussels attacks: The responsibility to counter jihadism lies with us Muslims

Thanks for that link. A very thoughtful article.

"We need to be the change. Condemn every terrorist attack. Not justify it. Or make excuses or look for holes in the ground to stick our heads in."

I agree, brilliant article.

I asked upthread
The fact that 'deradicalisation' is needed is an indication of the extent of the problem. What the hell is going on? Who is preaching in these communities, who has influence?

Well, here's part of the answer: the link posted upthread by justanother.

I agree with that article from Pakistan as well. Muslims shouldn't have to apologise for things they've not done, but they are the ones best able to criticise and counter the murderous, poisonous, dangerous ideology spouted by Islamists. If they don't, who will? Who else knows enough about Islam to actually critique it? People outside a religion are not well placed to press for reform within it.

But even on this thread we have had Muslims saying it isn't their job.
Where do we go from there?

Meph 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 state.

Radical rooster Oh I love to tinfoil hat Brigade who claim that we need this shit happening on a regular basis so we can make money out of wars in the middle east.

Radical, I would argue that it isn't "us" who wants to make money out of wars in the ME. It's more a case of regimes wanting to remain in power and also wield power on a global scale.

It became clear that there was a significant connection between Islamist terrorism and certain Gulf States when Bandar bin Sultan threatened Putin prior to the Sochi Olympics with not being able to prevent terrorist incidents at the Games if Putin did not abandon his support of Assad. Again, it is pretty widely considered that ISIS were originally a Qatari-sponsored proxy force that the Al-Sauds "took over."

I have been inclined to see these "terrorist attacks" as part of a blackmail scenario for quite a while. Everything seems to fit: even down to choice of location and timings -- which never chime with what you would consider to be legitimate state targets.

Part of me suspects these attacks are ramping up because several Western figures have openly stated that certain regimes will not last the decade, which, in turn, suggests that some people in very high global positions of power have got very pissed off with the antics of these regimes and are sowing the seeds for their eventual removal.

Those regimes are responding by basically threatening the West through terrorist attacks from their cleverly-created fifth column. With this in mind, it becomes very clear why Saudi Arabia wanted to build hundreds of mosques in Germany and why certain forces may want the migrant crisis chaos to continue.

The problem is that certain gulf states are incredibly powerful because they can control energy prices and can play at harmless allies to the West because they have no substantial conventional standing armies (unlike, say, Russia or China). Saudi oil production increases have fundamentally smashed the Russian economy by crashing the oil price, for example.

Now we face the consequences of foolishly letting these regimes infiltrate Western Islamic communities with their not only their Wahhabi garbage but also their political propaganda.

It is a fucking mess. It really is.

I don't think Muslims have to speak out against terrorism or feel they should apologise apart from Muslim leaders

It's complex as the Muslim faith is a brotherhood/sisterhood or seems that way from the outside

What I do think we All need to do is accept that there is a large amount of support for terrorism and all this nonsense of they are not real Muslim blah blah takes over this argument they are Muslim. Why are so many young Muslims or those that convert supporting terrorism what are they feeling so resentful and full of hatred towards the west

We are so quick to sepersre those terrorists from other Muslims we are ignoring the support they are getting from within Muslim communities

we All need to do is accept that there is large amount of support for terrorism

Maybe not large but definetly a substantial amount, when the Rotherham Imam
Jalal Uddin was murdered, initial reports and tell mama etc was jumping on it as a far right attack, when the story came out that he was in fact killed by a fellow Muslim because the imam was trying to help the kids and oust the hate preachers there was silence.

Maajid Nawaz " we need to pull islam up by its roots"

"benefits of provoking war between Muslims and non Muslims, so communities begin to self segregate for their own protection, will only ever serve those who wish to divide the world into muslim and non, zones"

" The struggle is 1st and foremost an ideological one before it is a military one. Many liberal left used to deny Islamic extremism existed. Then they took to limiting the problem to "violent" extremism only using nauseating and insipid phrases like "al queda inspired extremism " to refer to what clearly an ideology. Not it was al Queda that 'inspired extremism' it was extremism that inspired Al Q."

"Vague platitudes that this has nothing to do with Islam are as unhelpful as saying this is Islam per se. This certainly does have something to do with Islam. We must finally accept that the world is in the midst of a generational struggle to distinguish Islam as a faith from Islamism, a political Ideology that seeks to impose any version of ISLAM OVER SOCIETY, and its violent arm of Jihadism. The task ahead of us is to name this ideology of Islamism, isolate it, and discredit it, while supporting those who seek to reform Islam today. "

" WE MUST REASSERT OUR HARD EARNED ENLIGHTENMENT VALUES as an antidote to rising theocratic dogma within our communities.

" Islamists seek to convince us Muslims to identity by our religious identiy before any other. But we must be citizens first and foremost standing for secularism. Just as one need not be gay to challenge homophobia one need not be Muslim to challenge theocracy.

" The world is not divided between muslims and Non M, but between those who believe in open societies and those who want closed ones. All of us together are responsible for challenging theocratic thinking before it spills to violence."

Majid Nawaaz is great. Got a lot of time for him and Qillam. They take an awful lot of flack from some other Muslims though.

Reports that a Muslim campaigner for interfaith relations has been murdered in Glasgow by other Muslims in a religiously motivated attack. A few hours after he posted a happy Easter message to British Christians. Poor guy.

There is a thread about the murder of Asad Shah:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/2600132-Murder-in-Glasgow?msgid=60076912#60076912

I like Quilliam too but I didn't realise he was from Quillam!

Majid Nawaaz is to be admired for trying to bring about reform. However I just don't see how he or other revisionist can ever succeed when the roots of this extremism springs entirely from the Quran & Mohammed.

From Majid's own definitions, Muhammed was an Islamist and he acknowledges he did bad things, however excuses them as being 'of the time',

But yet simultaneously muslims are taught that Muhammed is the 'greatest man that ever lived and the role model for the whole of humanity'.

Majid has never been able to rebutt this contradiction. There's a whole lot of mental gymnastics and obsfucation which convinces neither the critics nor the extremists.

"Vague platitudes that this has nothing to do with Islam are as unhelpful as saying this is Islam per se" ..... But yet the latter is true. This is everything to do with Islam.

Here's an ex-muslim using the Quran and other verified legitimate sources to show how ISIL's behaviour mimics that of Muhammeds:

The other videos on his channel are also worth watching for those who want an easy primer on Islam.

www.youtube.com/channel/UCEzckaXvM0i6CyHbz5YxwoQ

In my view, this construct between Islam and Islamist- vilifying the latter only and separating it from the former is an entirely pointless exercise and if anything will only serve to prolong the mayhem. Islamist will always be able to justify their actions theologically.

Our only hope is to discredit Islam itself so that the moderate muslims who continue to adhere to it believing it to be something it isn't, begin to reject it and it eventually dies out. This all sounds pie in the sky, but it will happen. It's already started. The ex-muslim community is growing across the globe in all countries, largely as a result of being exposed to the real truth about Islam.

Mistress, I always find your posts really interesting: you know what you're talking about and you express it very clearly.

Do you think there is any way that Islam could be reformed the way Christianity was 500 years ago? Or is that not feasible?

Thanks for the links.

Interesting (if complicated and a little hard to follow) article about funding of the Quilliam foundation:

www.alternet.org/world/how-violent-extremists-hijacked-london-based-counter-extremism-think-tank

EnthusiasmDisturbed Fri 25-Mar-16 14:50:14
I don't think Muslims have to speak out against terrorism or feel they should apologise apart from Muslim leaders

If they do not they must accept that when the next terrorist attack happens, as it will sooner or later, they will be accused of tacit approval of the violence by failing to condemn it.

Some interesting viewpoints especially about the sabotaging of interfaith relations. I agree that the strongest critics and reformers must come from within Islam itself. Isis may well see it as divide and conquer. Anecdotally some Muslims friends have reported criticism from others within their community as being seen as 'not good enough muslims' which suggests there are elements within the community which are militant. They may be minority but it may come to the old saying if he who shouts loudest etc. Many moderate Muslims are very peaceful and not shouty people and it maybe that they have to take a step out of their comfort zone to shout these people down as it strikes me that the very militant ones are extremely vocal and determined to win the argument at all costs.

It was really awful about the shopkeeper in Glasgow, by all accounts he was a lovely bloke and an example to all. My thoughts are with his family and I hope the perpertrators feel the full weight of the law. All he did was wish people happy Easter, how tragic.

Just over a week ago, fighter jets from a Saudi-led (U.S. and U.K.-supported) coalition bombed a market in Mastaba, in Yemen’s northern province of Hajjah. About 120 people were killed, including more than 20 children. 80 were wounded.

How might it change public perceptions if this and similar events received the media attention of Brussels? If we saw 24 hour coverage of the carnage, were told the names of the children, their broken families?

WE are sitting by, on the whole in silence. Events like this are partially backed by the people we, as a nation, voted in. We might occasionally remember and go on a Stop The Wat rally (after every event like the one in Yemen? Doubt it).

It is so easy to focus on how people should respond to Brussels and Paris, because they - rightly - are covered extensively in the media. But this is one side of an enormously complicated and deadly picture. Just imagine for a moment how our perceptions might be different if each similar scale atrocity in the M.E. we're covered so extensively and so personally.

Funny Jeremy, using that article to criticise Quillam. The author was described by Christopher Hitchens as: "Mr. Ahmed on inspection proved to be a risible individual wedded to half-baked conspiracy-mongering, his 'Institute' a one-room sideshow"

Incidentally the website that is hosted on has a history of attacking anti extremists including Yasmin Hirsi Ali. Can't take that article seriously, both the writer and the source are fully paid up members of the tin hat brigade.

Ah Jeremy, looks like your trying to play the 'Nobel Savage' Theory

You are confusing and conflating two separate issues. One is Western invasions and the other is the latent illiberal ideas in Islam.

Why are places like Sweden, Holland and Thailand experiencing Muslim attacks, not to mention the many others.

I don't follow your post, justanother. What exactly am I conflating?

Bill, there are lots of complex arguments on all sides of this. People constantly trying to discredit each other (especially with the old "tin foil hat" lines). I'm not saying I necessary agree with all Dr Nafeez Ahmed says. In his article are some interesting possible facts re funding of Quilliam. Have you looked into it and concluded they are all wrong?

Jeremy. I'd like to know exactly what you want the West to do. If we step into areas where there is conflict or oppression we are evil war mongering Islamic baby mongering scum. When the Saudis bomb Yemen we're standing back and letting something terrible happen. We can't win whatever we do. And we can't stop conflicts across the rest of the world.

France and Brussels are part of the same political system as us. We are all part of the EU which we have votes to change. What happens there affects us and we have some influence on how it's dealt with so it's of interest to us. It affects us because we're far more likely to be traveling to Brussels or Paris or have friends or family doing so. Two countries thousands of miles away kicking off at each other because of tribal and religious fallouts - there's not much we can do about that, and even if we did that would be wrong in the eyes of Islamic extremists too.

I'm sure it's absolutely the same in Yemen or Saudi Arabia or Indonesia and what happened in Brussels isn't an immediate concern for them.