That has nothing to do with my question, I was asking what level of action you think is appropriate.
I don’t know much about what, if anything, is done to de-radicalise people. If you do, feel free to share it and say whether you think it’s sufficient.
That’s hot.
It goes without saying that this was another despicable act, but I think I was more troubled by some of the responses I saw online.
I followed the immediate aftermath of the attack on Twitter, via the search term “London Bridge” and the #LondonBridge hashtag. I read hundreds and hundreds of tweets. A minority of them, but a significantly large minority, were anti-Muslim. Of these tweets, many called, in so many words, for ethnic-cleansing of Muslims from the West, and others, in so many words, called for all-out global genocide against them.
That’s why I think people who reject comparisons with the Nazism of the 1930s as hyperbole are doing so in haste. I see a lot of parallels and, for the backdrop of anti-Semitism of that time, one can substitute the Islamophobia of our time. Since the Second World War ended, the question of how a population could go along with such levels of discrimination and, ultimately, genocide is often debated. There is no doubt in my mind that there are many people in our time who would be not just compliant, but eager to go down such a path.
In addition to its moral injustice, it makes me angry because it’s so egregiously simpleminded and counterproductive. Muslims in Muslim countries are suffering the effects of Islamic extremism far more acutely than we in the West. In both attacks in the UK in the past week or so, the attackers had previously been reported to the authorities by people from their own communities. To wilfully turn allies into enemies, as both the alt-Right neo-fascists and the Islamic extremists appear intent on doing, would be catastrophic.
Your comparison is ridiculous. Jews conmitted no violence. They were deeply integrated into German society. There is no comparison to 1930s Germany and 2017.
Are you saying that if a very small number of Jews in Germany (comparable to the very small number of Muslims in Western countries who have killed people) did, in fact, commit violence, then the comparison would be reasonable?
From Wikipedia
The Nazis argued that they were saving Germany from being overcome by Jewish Bolshevism and Communism. The person who burnt down the Reichstag was accused of being a Communist, and perhaps he was. The Jews, by extension through the “Jewish Bolshevism” theory, also bore responsibility in the minds of the supporters of this worldview.
I don’t think the logic holds. The fact that a minority says or does objectionable things or holds objectionable views is no indication of a wider problem in that culture or society as a whole…or is it?
But they didnt. Nor did a far larger segment of Jews give them moral nor material support. Nor were Jewish neighborhood’s harboring criminals. Stop it.
Please cite and Jewish terror attack in Germany. Most German Jews were secular and deeply integrated into German society. They intermarried. They were also in Germany for generations.
They way you phrase that question is odd. Specifying “in Germany” implies that you might be aware of these but were trying to exclude them somehow. Now, they are certainly not a lot of incidents, but were they to happen to Americans today, they would certainly be called terrorism.
I’ve now seen fuller reports of what this man and the men he was with went on to say to her, and I can see why they were alarming, but probably short of criminally prosecutable in themselves. And maybe enough to make them “of interest” to the counter-terrorism authorities, but then we come back to the resource issue.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing…
1)Andy specified Germany
2)Please aquaint yourself with the history of German actions against Jews in the 1930s and reassess whether those assassinations (by non German Jews) werent justified.
3)Please point out any equivalency at all between the treatment of 21st century Muslim communities and 1930s Jewish communities. If anything, Jews had far far greater grievances.
I guess Muslims have nothing to worry about, then.
In 21st centuru western europe and usa? Id say no.
I’m trying my hardest to be polite. Could you point me to where I mentioned their justification or equivalences? For that matter, given that I am aware of those assassinations, what leads you to believe that I should “please acquaint myself” of anything? Are you saying that if these actions happened against America today, that the administration would not try to spin them as terrorism?
You mean if a Uruguayan Jew assassinated a member of a rabidly anti-semetic government? Is the usa rabidly anti-semetic?
Now to be fair I do not consider John Brown to be a terrorist. There is a difference between striking at governmental targets who are oppressors and killing a bunch of teenage girls at a concert.
That’s fair. If I were forced to make a choice if John Brown was or was not I’d have to say “yes”, but whether or not the assassins were, I’d say “no”, only because they were clearly assassins but not as clearly terrorists and I’d rather use the most precise word (not that it isn’t possible to be both.)
When in Europe in recent decades have we heard people calling for the driving out of particular minorities from their land? Probably only in the former Yugoslavia. This wasn’t the odd isolated tweet - in percentage terms it was multiples of ten.
I disagree that a large segment of Muslims are giving terrorists moral or material support. I also disagree that Muslim communities are “harboring” terrorists. At least one of the attackers had previously been reported to the police because of his extremist views by one of his friends. He’d also been thrown out of his local mosque because of his views. Furthermore, he appeared last year on British television in a documentary about British jihadists and was filmed unveiling an Islamic State flag in a London Park, which should have been a big red flag, no pun intended. It seems to me that the Muslim community did their bit to warn the authorities.
I’d have trouble thinking of Butt as anything other than a lost, idiotic dickhead.
He wanted to be on tv with his made up ‘ISIS’ flag and his pretend gang in Regents Park, he chose to wear an Arsenal shirt - his other tribe - for his big moment, he was so shite he taped water bottles around is waist so people finally took him seriously, and after years of trying to get weapons the best he could manage was to do his ‘jihadist’ bullshit using his wife’s kitchen knife.
He couldn’t even manage a copycat of Manchester he was so rubbish. It’s difficult to image a more pathetic, attention-seeking twat.
There is a serious side to it about angry, confused Muslim males alighting on ISIS in order to validate their lives, but this character was straight out of 3 Lions.
It just makes it all the more heartbreaking the more you know about his victims.
So if a very tiny minority of Jews were violent, and a higher number (but still very small minority) of Jews helped the violent ones, and some non-zero number of Jewish neighborhoods harbored violent Jews at some point, this would be a good comparison?
If so, do you believe ethnic pogroms are justified when some small minority of a community is guilty of the above actions?