ISIS

Who Are the European Jihadists?

Young and alienated, they tend to be uninterested in theology and not closely connected with the larger Muslim community.

|

Video game violence
ISIS

Last week the political scientist Olivier Roy delivered a fascinating talk at a conference sponsored by the German counterpart to the FBI. Drawing on data about Europeans who join jihadist groups, Roy argues that they're primarily driven not by theology, nor by deprived backgrounds, but by a particular sort of youthful alienation.

Roy concludes that we can't make broad psychological generalizations about this subculture, beyond the unsurprising fact that they're frustrated and resentful. They come from a wide range of sociological backgrounds, but the majority are "second generation Muslims born in Europe, [and] the others are converts; almost none came as a young adult or as a teenager to Europe from the Middle East." Many of them "have a past of petty delinquency and drug dealing" followed by "a sudden and rapid 'return' to religion (or conversion), immediately followed by political radicalisation. There is a clear 'breaking point,' often linked with a personal crisis (jail for instance)."

These jihadists are

clearly a youth movement: almost all of them [were] radicalised to the dismay of their parents and relatives (a huge difference if we compare with Palestinian radicals). Most parents not only disapprove of their children's radicalisation, but actively try to bring them back or even to have them arrested by the police. This pattern is found as well among parents of converts (a fact we can expect), but also among Muslim parents (Abaaoud in Belgium). In this sense the radicals do not express an anger shared by their milieus or by the Muslim "community."

It is a peer phenomenon: they radicalise in the framework of a small network of friends, whatever the concrete circumstances of their meeting may be (neighbourhood, jail, internet, or sports clubs). This puts them often at odds with the traditional view of family and women in Islam. These groups are often mixed in gender terms, and the women play often a far more important role than they themselves claim (Boumediene in the Charlie Hebdo killers' team). They intermarry between themselves, without the parents' consent. In this sense they are closer to the ultra-left groups of the 1970s.

Roy argues that the chief motive for young men joining a jihad is a "fascination for a narrative," a storyline starrring a "small brotherhood of super-heroes who avenge the Muslim Ummah." That Ummah "is global and abstract, never identified with a national cause," and the narrative draws not just on Islam but on pop-culture products such as video games.

Roy has some particularly interesting comments on the religious dimension of the jihadists' worldview:

The ultraleft? Too bourgeois!
ISIS

The revolt is expressed in religious terms for two reasons:

– Most of the radicals have a Muslim background, which makes them open to a process of re-islamisation (almost none of them being pious before entering the process of radicalisation).

– Jihad is the only cause on the global market. If you kill in silence, it will be reported by the local newspaper; if you kill yelling "Allahuakbar," you are sure to make the national headlines. The ultraleft or radical ecology is too "bourgeois" and intellectual for them.

When they join jihad, they adopt the Salafi version of Islam, because Salafism is both simple to understand (don'ts and dos) and rigid, providing a personal psychological structuring effect. Moreover, Salafism is the negation of cultural Islam, that is the Islam of their parents and of their roots. Instead of providing them with roots, Salafism glorifies their own deculturation and makes them feel better "Muslims" than their parents. Salafism is the religion by definition of a disenfranchised youngster.

Incidentally, we should make a distinction between religious radicalisation and jihadist radicalisation. There is of course an overlap, but the bulk of the Salafists are not jihadist, and many jihadists don't give a damn about theology.

Only a few of the militants whose lives Roy reviewed attended a local mosque regularly, and in general they had only a loose connection—or no connection—to Europe's larger Muslim communities. "This," Roy writes, "explains why 1) the close monitoring of mosques brings little information; 2) Imams have little or no influence on the process of radicalisation; 3) 'reforming Islam' does not make sense: they just don't care about 'what Islam really means.'" And so, he concludes,

To promote a "moderate Islam" to bring radicals back to the mainstream is nonsense. They just reject moderation as such.

To ask the "Muslim community" to bring radicals back to normal life is also nonsense. Radicals just don't care about people they consider as "traitors," "apostates," or "collaborators" as long as they don't choose the same path.

To consider Islam only through the lenses of "fighting terrorism" will validate the narrative of persecution and revenge that feeds the process of radicalisation.

To read the whole thing, go here. For a broader look at the way people talk about "radicalization"—a term that covers a lot more than the group Roy is discussing—go here.

NEXT: Alaska Regulators Propose Allowing Cannabis Cafés

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. They’re just sick of being othered by all the microaggressions of daily life. Unlike other dimwits though, they’re willing to do something about it.

    1. They’re like the Nazi skinheads of the 1980s.

      Where’d we expect European born jihadis to come from? The fully enfranchised?

      There’s something about angry guys in their late teens and early twenties that can make any of them dangerous. I think t’s usually solved by getting a girlfriend. Convince a guy at that age that he has no shot at being a success or having a girlfriend, and they can be really dangerous.

      It’s not just the European born, either. Guys that age with no prospects of female companionship or success are just as dangerous in Pakistan, Libya, and Saudi Arabia, too. …as well as South Central Los Angeles and Chicago.

      We used to use a lot of these guys in wars. When we drafted people for Vietnam, if you weren’t going to college, and you didn’t have a job… Guess what? You’re in the Army! Every generation had a war, and I bet the guys with the least to lose may have represented more of the casualties on the battlefield–going back to forever.

      In a lot of species, if you can’t attract a female, you don’t survive. In some species, once you’ve procreated, you don’t have any further use as a male and you die. Homo sapiens isn’t much different. Bonobo males that are shunned by females in the group are sad and lonely and dangerous, and female Bonobos will shun males for being poor providers or dangerous.

      1. Convince a guy at that age that he has no shot at being a success or having a girlfriend, and they can be really dangerous.

        It will be interesting to see what happens in China given that young men so outnumber women.

        1. Maybe we should suggest that those muslim youth enter into plural marriage? I mean they already embrace polygyny; should be a short leap from there to polyandry, right?

        2. Last time, the Boxer Rebellion happened.

      2. I think t’s usually solved by getting a girlfriend.

        Or a boyfriend.

        1. Not usually, no.

        2. Hmmm…I wonder how many of them are closeted homos. Islam is, of course, incredibly homophobic so maybe they are either looking for a religiously approved exit (with the presumption that their homosexuality will be either cured or accepted in the afterlife), or looking to build up some good karma* to offset the bad karma of their filthy homo thoughts.

          (*)Yes, I know that in Hinduism/Buddhism that karma is all negative; using this in the popular though less-accurate sense.

          1. “Islam is, of course, incredibly homophobic”

            It varies by culture.

            Even in those you think of as homophobic, it’s more like an ancient Roman form.

            The penalty for being a bottom with your male slave was death.

            The penalty for screwing your male slave?

            There was no penalty for that.

            It’s also often understood that younger men go through a phase in some of these culture. And using them for “fun” isn’t considered being what we call “homosexual”. It’s that way in parts of both Afghanistan and parts of North Africa. I think you’ll find it among Muslims in various parts of Asia, too.

            1. Remember heterosexual and homosexual, as we understand it today, didn’t exist in our culture before the advent of psychology in the West. Yeah, people were still having homosexual sex, but it was considered a sin–not a part of a person’s identity as a homosexual or heterosexual. In fact, having too much sex inside a heterosexual marriage was considered more or less the same kind of depravity as having sex with another man–right up until the advent of psychology. And the idea that heterosexuals existed didn’t come into conventional thought until psychology started studying homosexuality. Once they realized there was something called homosexuality, they invented a term for something which wasn’t that.

              They’ve always had prohibitions against murder in Malaysia, but 60 years ago, chopping the head off of someone from a neighboring tribe and shrinking his head so you could have power of the that victim’s soul wasn’t considered murder. Other cultures (and religions) may have always had prohibitions against being what we might translate as being a homosexual, but that doesn’t mean they mean what we mean when we say “homosexual”. Our constructions of sexual identity aren’t necessarily unique to our culture, but they are different from other cultures.

            2. It’s also often understood that younger men go through a phase in some of these culture.

              A phase of being sex toys for their elders, in some of the more backward/barbaric areas.

              1. It’s more widespread than you might think, and it used to involve a child being given over for schooling to an older trusted family friend–either by the boy’s father or his uncle.

                If the practice is widespread across all of North Africa, I don’t know about it being confined to certain areas. It’s not the crazies sexual practice to become widespread across an entire culture.

                http://www.iranicaonline.org/a…..ext-of-kin

            3. I just thought of another example.

              There’s a Native American culture that I understand has four genders in their language. We would think of them as male, female, gay, and lesbian. Nouns are declined in the language along those four genders.

              Traditionally, when someone in that culture goes to their naming ceremony, they pick a gender from the four–any of which are considered acceptable.

              They had marriage in that culture, and that’s for the genders we would think of as gay and lesbian, too. However, they also had legal prohibitions against homosexuality. But what they meant by that is different from what we would mean by that word.

              It was unacceptable for someone of heterosexual male gender to have sex with another heterosexual male. It was also unacceptable for a heterosexual male to have sex with someone of gay gender. Two people of gay gender getting together (or getting married) was perfectly acceptable, but they had harsh penalties for heterosexual males having sex with each other or with gay men. That was wrong according to them, and in that sense, they harshly prohibited “homosexuality”.

              You’ll find differences like that between our ideas and cultures that are influenced by Islam, too.

        3. It’s still unclear to me where that fits into the evolutionary narrative.

          I’ve always thought that if there’s a genetic component to same sex attraction, the males must inherit the attraction to other men from the x chromosome they receive from their mothers.

          Either that, or we choose more for ourselves than we realize.

          Or maybe the reason we’re here is more than just to pass on our genes.

          All I know is that life without female companionship is sad and lonely if you’re a heterosexual male. And for someone who was more than a little dangerous himself in his youth, it made a big difference for me. You have to compromise and be sweet sometimes to keep them happy. And without a woman in your life, it’s dangerous.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzXDg_aWJg8

          1. I suspect there is a genetic component, plus hormone exposure in the womb, and also an upbringing (parenting and early experience) component to same-sex attraction. I’d even go so far as to guess that the proportions of the mix can vary, which probably accounts for why there are macho-acting gays and more androgynous types.

            As for the lack of female companionship for heterosexual males causing a sad and lonely existence that leads to dangerous and anti-social behavior, my guess is that is partly an attempt to “fix” the problem. I can’t speak for how it is in cultures other than North America and Europe, but it seems that, up until one’s late 20s or so, a great many females are much more sexually interested in “bad boys” than they are in “good guys” who follow the rules, succeed in school, etc. If you are a young guy who’s never had a girlfriend and you start getting in trouble with the law, kicked out of school, etc., and you can actually get girls’ parents to start warning them to “stay away from _________, that boy is nothing but trouble,” then you are pretty much GUARANTEED to start getting laid. It doesn’t matter what you look like. Being perceived as a rebel and dangerous will quickly take you from Pauly Shore to Paul Newman status in the eyes of most chicks. That probably works up until full-blown, career-bound adulthood. At that point, having a rap sheet and not being to keep a job that doesn’t involve burgers starts to make you much less of a stud.

          2. Current working hypothesis is that gestational hormones play a part in that, too, but the tendency to produce those gestational hormones would be something inherited by the mother from her mother….

            1. This.

              I also read where birth order plays a role. Apparently, having one or more older siblings, especially sisters, somehow changes the hormonal environment in the womb, increasing the odds that the last-born male will be gay.

      3. +1 Supreme Gentleman

        1. /r9k/

          1. (The comments ate my triple greater-than sign, and thus the meaning of my post)

    2. Pretty much. It’s the same phenom, just oriented toward an aggressively masculine rather than aggressively feminine ideology. In the long run, I expect a lot of SJWs to be converted to the Islamist movement, as it speaks to some of the same mental issues and requires less cognitive dissonance.

  2. “Many of them “have a past of petty delinquency and drug dealing” followed by “a sudden and rapid ‘return’ to religion (or conversion), immediately followed by political radicalisation. There is a clear ‘breaking point,’ often linked with a personal crisis (jail for instance).”

    Yeah, they need to end the Drug War in Europe, too.

    Prison conversion is a big conduit for Islam in the U.S., too.

    Malcolm X became a Muslim in prison.

  3. I assume they are American libertarians posing as Muslims. Has anyone seen Ron Paul lately? Coincidence? I think not!

  4. To ask the “Muslim community” to bring radicals back to normal life is also nonsense.

    Sounds bleak. So he’s entirely dismissing the idea of some sort of “deprogramming”?

    1. So, its sounds like once they go radical, they aren’t coming back. Except in a bag.

  5. Losers hate feeling like losers, so they like to join gangs that tell them they’re not losers. ISIS really isn’t any different than the Crips, except that it’s stupider.

    1. Bingo. They are nihilists man. I only half kid. The problem isn’t lack of economic opportunity. Some of these people would have decent prospects if they were not losers and plenty of people who don’t have any prospects become terrorists.

      In fact, economics has virtually nothing to do with it. Some people don’t want a quiet productive life. All people want some kind of meaning in their lives. And losers have a hard time finding that in living an ordinary life. Usually losers have an inflated ego and think living an ordinary life is beneath them.

      Movements like ISIS can be very appealing to such losers. First, it gives their life meaning and purpose. More importantly, it feeds their ego by giving them a sense of exclusivity. Join ISIS and I am not one of these losers out working every day. I am part of the elite. I know the truth and they don’t and I am going to usher in the better world. Even better, it gives them a chance to exact revenge on the people and the society that refuses to recognize how awesome they are and expected them to work and be an ordinary schlep.

      Becoming a radical Muslim is probably the best way for disaffected losers to give the finger to Western Society. And that is a real problem.

      1. I’m a little confused, because I have been told that the most radical Islamists mostly come from wealthy families.

        1. Idiot sons of wealthy families are often the sorts of losers I am talking about. Their actual prospects in life have nothing to do with it. You can be a loser living in your parents mansion just as easy as one living in your grandmother’s two room flat in a slum.

        2. I believe that has shifted with the rise of ISIS as opposed to al Qaeda.

        3. They’re still losers, and they still want to add some bullshit pre-packaged meaning to their loser lives, and they don’t want to have to think very hard to do it.

        4. What was the name of the little loser shithead who killed the girls who wouldn’t fuck him? Radical Islam is that kid.

        5. Hey, coming from a wealthy family can be quite stressful!

          1. You would certainly think so judging by the idiot students at Yale and other prestigious universities.

        6. I’m a little confused, because I have been told that the most radical Islamists mostly come from wealthy families.

          Was it ever most by numbers, or just most funding and influential members?

      2. Islamists are a fusion of fascism, by way of Baathists, and Islam, by way of everyone else. SJWs are nihilists, who see all ideas and beliefs as “constructs” that need to be torn down, and replaced with basically nothing. They reject logic, facts, even simple aspects of existence like sex. Say what you will about the tenets of jihad, at least it’s an ethos.

        1. I think the idea that SJWs are nihilists is total nonsense; if anything they are utopianists. They don’t believe in moral relativism, they do believe in progress, and they are obsessed with talking about making a better world for the next generation.

          1. Just say Nikki, It is total nonsense. It does nothing to explain mass religious movements, and the essential premises of Islam, and it’s mechanism of spreading historically. (Which has been through social coercion.) Nor does it explain the large base of soft sympathy for them. This psychoanalysis stems from the collapse of orientalism, and our capacity to imagine that religious conviction is a very real phenomenon, and that large numbers of people are susceptible to it, even if relatively few people are killing for it at any one time. (A point of reference folks: 1% of Americans are in the Armed forces. That’s the most powerful military on earth.)

    2. This, except for the extra religious angle. Now not only do they get to push people around, but God tells them to push people around! They’re not dropout losers, they’re EMPOWERED BY GOD!

      1. Die in jihad and go directly to Paradise, no waiting. Regardless of how much of an asshole you were before you became a jihadi.

        It’s not an easy problem to fix.

        1. I maintain the 67 virgins is the key. I mean, why virgins?

          If you’re going to go to heaven prematurely in order to get busy with the ladies, wouldn’t you PREFER to meet up with some experienced, sexually confident, multi-orgasmic chicks who can teach you some tricks and drive you wild rather than some shy and ultra-nervous shy types who just lie there, pretty much still and silent, and wait for you to finish why they stress about getting caught.

          I say hammer home the fact that 67 virgins would be much of a headache/libido-killer than a godsend, and you will make these would-be martyrs start thinking twice.

          Or maybe I’ve just given way too much thought to this.

          1. Inigo, Well they do have an eternity to get tired of them. They’ll be “busy tearing hymens” as one Mullah put it, for a while. Eventually, they’ll be driven insane of course, and start looking enviously at the others’ 72 virgins, and wondering whether it’s time to start another heavenly Jihad.

            1. At the rate of one per night, which any red-blooded young martyr could manage, they’d be fresh out of virgins in less than 3 months. Three months out of an eternity! It’s a given that plunder of neighboring martyrs’ remaining virgin stock would become a given, and war in heaven would soon follow.

              Last time we had a war in heaven, we ended up with a major angel taking a very high dive from the clouds down to a fiery lake, as he decided it was better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.

              I shudder to think what will happen if hundreds or even thousands of disgruntled, virgin-deprived types end up plunging into fiery lakes. I fear this would definitely increase global warming and Al Gore’s predictions would finally come true!

              1. According to the writings of Al-Suyuti , “Each time we sleep with a houri we find her virgin.” So, fuck the same houri a hundred times, and she’s still a virgin on fuck #101.

                Which means, presumably, physiologically virgin, in the sense of a perpetually-regenerating hymen, not inexperienced.

    3. Losers hate feeling like losers, so they like to join gangs that tell them they’re not losers. ISIS really isn’t any different than the Crips, except that it’s stupider.

      And more dangerouser.

    4. I wonder how much has to do with the welfare state lifting so much responsibility from people’s shoulders. When you have to arrange everything yourself, it gives you a feeling of accomplishment. If all you do is sign a few forms and get easy welfare with little need to take care of yourself, it’s easy to lose self-esteem and feel like a loser. If instead you had to get a job, any job, to avoid living on the street, you might feel bitter about your piss poor job, but you wouldn’t be a no-good lazy layabout with all that free time to think of revolution.

      Idle hands are the devil’s playthings.

      1. But the welfare state has been around for decades without producing terrorists like this (at least as far as I know).

        It might be a contributing factor, among many other things, figuring out how much of a contributing factor is hard. Multicausal, feedback loops, non-linearity, etc etc.

        1. But the welfare state has been around for decades without producing terrorists like this

          I dunno. I thought the UK dole was found to have exacerbated the problem of the PIRA in Northern Ireland? I mean, if they were off the dole, the Soviet Union would have just funneled more cash to the Provos, but still, how many Provo gunmen with Armalites had day jobs?

          1. You may be right, and like I said, it may be a contributing factor, but how much? Maybe it only becomes a contributing factor when other conditions are met: it may not be enough to have unproductive time your hands, you also need a grievance, a radical ideology, a larger cause, ways of connecting with other would-be radicals, and so on.

      2. Workshop.

        Idle hands are the devil’s workshop.

        /crazed terrorist stare.

  6. It’s exactly the same dynamic as drug addiction – long history of mischief and aggression, permissive or uninvolved parenting, and a ‘war’ against them that turns them into criminals. It’s not surprising that islamic radicalization would increase as the drug war in Europe dies down. Radicalization is caused in part by Europe’s oppressive network of speech laws such as libel, blasphemy and ‘incitement’ laws that turn normal adolescent rebellion into criminal behavior and then it’s only a step or two to jihad and terrorism. And like the drug war, they use these terrorist acts as justification to double down on it – more restrictions on free speech and assembly – which only make the problem worse. And of course, like the drug war, the parents cry, “I loved my child and did all the things the experts told me to do!”

  7. If we take these results as a given, one implication of this is that Muslim populations, for the forseeable future, are going to produce these types of terrorists regardless of how personally moderate the group of Muslims producing them is. So if Y is a linear function of X, and you want to reduce Y? Uh, obvious solution is to reduce X. Doesn’t exactly fit with the idea of favoring open borders or multiculturalism when it comes to the Islamic religion, but there it is.

    1. Y is a linear function of X
      Yep, that’s pretty much how society works.

      1. He’s joking.

        …Right?

        1. Let me ask you, do places like Mongolia or Bhutan who have no Muslims have an Islamic terrorism problem? If not, then why is what Trouser is saying so wrong?

          1. Nothing real is a linear function. Assuming linearity is a great way to be completely wrong.

            1. It doesn’t have to be a linear function for it to be causal or for it to be true that the more Muslims you have the greater problems with this sort of thing you are going to have

            2. Assuming linearity seems to be a reasonable implication in modeling the claims of the article.

              X% of the young Muslim population is just gonna go jihad. This doesn’t depend on income level or religious devotion, but on some undisclosed X factor of “youthful alienation”.

              So dropping the young Muslim population will drop the number of people who go jihad by a proportionate amount.

              For all intents and purposes, this simplified model is linear.

              1. Why would you assume alienation is linearly related to population size?

                1. I’m not. I’m assuming that jihadism is linearly related to the causal factors under our control (namely, how much of a Muslim population we can have in our society). “Alienation” would be an unknown that isn’t under our control, but which doesn’t change depending on population size.

                  I like to assume basic numeracy from people before talking down to them, but you people aren’t making it easy. The relationship between jihadism and size of young Muslim population is, per the assumptions described by the article, linear. Since that’s the only factor under our control, we can’t really say that this linear relationship is offset by another relationship which mitigates this effect (say, de-radicalization).

                  1. The relationship between jihadism and size of young Muslim population is, per the assumptions described by the article, linear.

                    Still waiting for you to actually show this.

                    1. Jesus Christ, Nikki. Is this really that hard? Do I really have to dumb it down so much for you and others? I might very well be wrong, but I’d think the proposition I’m making is fairly simple.

                      My interpretation of the above is that Roy’s model is something like this:

                      Y = # of jihadis in a society

                      X = # of young Muslims in a society

                      A = “youthful alienation”

                      Y = A * X

                      Rather than something like this:

                      B = Level of parental assimilation

                      C = Deradicalized view of Islam

                      D = Income level, etc

                      Y = A * X – B * X^1/2 – C * X^1/3 – ….

                      Which seems to be the prevailing model for many of those who have argued for open borders and a multiculturalist approach to Islam.

                    2. You seem to be confusing “linear function” with “function of a single independent variable.”

                    3. No. Both functions as I’ve written them have a single IV (X), and X changes differently depending on size of the population (say, as X gets bigger it becomes more difficult to implement assimilation, or to get more high-income immigrants to self-select to immigrate).

                      That should clear up your confusion.

                    4. It really doesn’t. Because I have absolutely no idea why you think “youthful alienation” is just a coefficient.

                    5. Why wouldn’t it be a coefficient?

                      Exactly what would you have it be? Another IV seems like a strange choice, given that we have no way to affect it in any meaningful way (nor do we have any idea how it would behave, if it were an independent variable). And, since this variable doesn’t seem to be directly tied to income level or any of the usual suspects (per the OP), I don’t see how you’d come up with anything reasonable to model it as besides a coefficient.

                  2. The relationship between jihadism and size of young Muslim population is, per the assumptions described by the article

                    I thought the point was that the young Muslim population in question is largely second generation. Or are you advocating reducing the size of the youth Muslim population by deporting citizens of a given country? Other concerns about rights and due process aside, that could lead to further radicalization.

                  3. I’m assuming that jihadism is linearly related to the causal factors under our control (namely, how much of a Muslim population we can have in our society)

                    I also think you are making a huge (and wrong) leap by assuming that the size of the Muslim population in some country is causally related to jihadism.

                    1. I’d say it’s causally related to how many jidahis you’ll have in a country.

                      A country with 100 young Muslim with a certain “alienated youth” rate might have, say, 1 jihadi.

                      A country with 10000 young Muslims with that same alienated youth rate would have the same chance of having 100 jihadis as the previous country did of having 1 jihadi.

                      Instead of being related to how good your country is at accommodating Islam without itself being an Islamic country.

                      Obviously this is very simple and would be better modeled stochastically, but I didn’t think it would be a very controversial post when I first wrote it out.

                    2. Contrariwise, I’d say it probably is causally related; it increases the chances of being surrounded solely by a clique of jihadis, and increases the likelihood of encountering a hate preacher in person. It would be interesting to see how many Western jihadis were pulled solely by internet propaganda.

          2. I may be wrong but I don’t think those areas have much in the way of social media (ISIS’ main recruiting tool) either.

            1. Sooo, Twitter cause terrorism. Ban Twitter!

              1. Working on it.

                /TPTB

      2. No Hugh, it is how society can work. It appears to be the case that a certain percentage of young Muslims will at some point blow a gasket and become radical. Why do you deny that? Were those people shooting up that rock concert not Muslims? Where they a Buddhist false flag operation?

        1. By “a certain percentage” do you mean “a fixed percentage”?

          1. Doesn’t matter if it is fixed. Unless the percentage goes down the more you have, then the relationship stands. The percentage probably does vary from year to year or population to population. But it is always there and thus it is a solid bet the larger your Muslim population the more people like this you are going to have.

            1. This subthread exists to dispute the claim that it is linear.

              1. It is a linear relationship regardless of what the parameter modifying X is, if that parameter does not change according to any of the factors under your control.

                Jesus Christ.

                1. He said that?

        2. It appears to be the case that a certain percentage of young Muslims people will at some point blow a gasket and become radical.

          ftfy

          It looks to me like they blow their gasket before they become Muslim radicals, not after. Some are rejoining the religion while others are converts. Either way they’ve got something loose before they sign up, not after.

          1. Converts are getting radicalized by peers. If they don’t have Muslim peers to convert them, they end up radicalized into some other group.

            Johns got a solid point in this case.

          2. Sure, a certain percentage of young people will become radicals.

            What happens next seems to be cultural, though. If they are radicalized into a Muslim (sub)culture, they seem to get pretty violent.

            If the are radicalized into an American campus subculture, they seem to get really mouthy.

            There’s a difference.

      3. It’s an implication of the results given in the article, dumbass. Chances of another jihadist (Y) are relative to the size of the youth Muslim population (X), regardless of radicalization level of the parents. So reduce X (say, by not accepting young Muslim immigrants) and you get a linear reduction of Y.

        But hey, that’s so mathy. Let’s toss out some more cliches instead, like NOT ALL MUSLIMS or FREEDOMS WILL MAKE THEM LOVE US.

        1. No, it’s not “so mathy,” it’s completely fucking made up.

          1. YOU FUCKING CUNT

        2. Oh, yes. That is mathy.

          1. It’s so mathy. I can’t even imagine how one would plot a linear function. You would need, what, at least two dimensions, right? My brain hurts already.

            1. Fuck it. Let’s put the towelheads in camps and call it a day. MATH.

            2. Dinosaur bones fossilized due to the immense pressures of the water of the Great Flood crushing them.

    2. Non-Muslim populations are also going to produce these types of terrorists.

      1. Yes, the Amish certainly seem restless of late.

        1. Are you trying to dispute the fact that people raised as Christians or other non-Muslims have converted to Islam to join ISIS?

          1. Converted to what, again? I didn’t catch that. You seem to be insinuating that–if it can be believed–Islam might have something to do with terrorism.

            And that’s just utter nonsense.

      2. With this level of coordination and profile? I can accept your premise on some level, the problem is there seems to be common thread of organization and purpose to these attackers that is a little more dangerous than random nutjobs and other smaller non-muslim outfits.

        1. that is*seems to be a little more dangerous

        2. Yes, because they are going to convert to Islam and join ISIS.

          1. I apologize I misunderstood your post, I thought you were suggesting something different.

      3. Yes, it happened in the US back in the 1960s. Seems to have something to do with demographics, too. The average age in the ME is considerably young these days. And so it was here in the 1960s.

        1. The 1960s youth who became left-wing hippies were also an unprecedentedly affluent generation, especially compared to their parents, who as youths had lived through the worst years of the Depression.

          But your demographic point still holds. But there must be more at play than just sheer numbers in each group.

    3. “The foreseeable future,” in this case, means 2+ decades down the line, since today’s migrants would need to settle down, have kids, and those kids grow and become radicalized.

    4. “So if Y is a linear function of X, and you want to reduce Y? Uh, obvious solution is to reduce X”

      I see two problems with that formulation.

      1) We’re not talking about quantities of X and Y. We’re talking about people, and people have rights. Neither those people nor their rights exist merely for the benefit and safety of others. Most of us understand this intuitively with regard to our Second Amendment rights. Even IF IF IF fewer guns did mean less violence and crime, I’d still support the government respecting our Second Amendment rights anyway. My rights aren’t a popularity contest. They don’t exist or not–depending on whether or how much they benefit other people. Individual religious rights are the same way.

      I’m all in favor of restricting immigrants from conflict areas that are rampantly anti-American and where the use of terrorism is common–but I don’t care whether those people are Christians or Muslims. I care that they represent a security threat.

    5. 2) The quantities X and Y aren’t just quantities in the real world. They’re also qualitative values.

      You’re making the same mistake as the utilitarians in not accounting for the qualitative aspects of respecting other people’s rights. Even IF IF IF violating the Fourth Amendment made more 9/11s less likely, I’d still oppose violating people’s Fourth Amendment rights anyway–because I have a qualitative preference for living in a free society that is more important to me than decreasing the threat to my personal safety. I ride a motorcycle every day, too, for the same reason. Some things I value more–for qualitative reasons–than risks to my personal safety, and freedom is one of those things. Religious rights is one of the things I’m talking about when I talk about freedom.

  8. This is all well and good Jesse, but if you don’t mind I’m going to continue to hold all Muslims responsible for the actions of people they have never met. I mean if the fact that the vast, overwhelming majority of Muslims have never committed an act of religiously-inspired violence isn’t enough to stop me from shouting RELIGION OF PEACE after every terrorist attack, the fact that most of the people who sign up for terrorist causes aren’t really all that Muslim certainly won’t do it.

    1. CUCKSERVATIVE

    2. I love people like Jesse and this Kraut telling Muslims what being a Muslim really entails. Like they’re the authority on what Islam says.

      But I am such an expert, and I know that being a Muslim means wanting to kill us all.

      1. Seeing as how Hugh characterizes jihadists as not “really all that Muslim”, that cuts both ways.

        1. Feel free to change that to ‘alienated from the broader Muslim community of Europe or the Middle East’. It expresses the same thing without assuming a level of familiarity with Islam that I really can’t claim.

      2. Is your subscription free?

      3. MJGreen, Well I suppose an authority of Mohammed, or that of the OIC (which plausible claims to represent the muslim world) is chopped pork liver eh? What about the Muslim brotherood, one of the most influential groups in North America?

        The fact is, that I don’t give a damn what Allah REALLY wants. What matters is the dimension of the problem posed by those who DO believe in virulent ideologies. I’m afraid on this criteria, there is serious cause for long-term concern, particularly as conservatives are likely to have more children. I realize this is no issue for those who hold hands and sing “Living for todayyyy” with John Lennon, but I tend to consider such a perspective rather irrelevant for large scale politics.

    3. My wife had to show me 2 videos of Muslims condemning the acts of the terrorists. They didn’t really sound too convincing to me. It seemed like they weren’t so much condemning the terrorists as they were trying to say that ‘all’ Muslims are not terrorists. That’s actually what they were saying, they weren’t actually condemning the acts, they were just saying ‘hey, I’m a Muslim and I’m not a terrorist’.

      1. I doubt that you would find a video of me condemning the Paris attacks all that convincing.

        1. That’s because you supported shutting down really good music.

      2. Hyperion, I doubt the sincerity or knowledgability of Muslims who denounce terror, and in the same breath pretend that the reform of Islam isn’t a serious issue. I say so with all due respect, since it’s not as easy to explain their position in terms of the gross ignorance which characterizes much of the regressive left.

    4. Hugh,

      The vast majority of people who are racist have never actually harmed a black person or participated in a lynching. Does that mean that racism isn’t the reason why people got lynched? Most racists never lynched anyone or would have supported doing so. So, lynching had nothing to do with racism right?

      1. So, what are you saying here? Bomb the South?

        1. Florida first. Can’t take any chances with all those bugs.

          1. Humidity. YUK!

        2. We’ll have to airlift out all the hot white trash girls in confederate flag bikinis first.

        3. No, but reducing and suppressing racism in the general population was more important than defeating the KKK.

        4. General Sherman, call your office.

  9. Another thought: it’s not likely that an analysis of the European gentry would have revealed a particularly pious mindset. Yet, they went by the thousands to go on crusade — why? It may very well be the case that there’s a deficit between belief and action in the minds of these people which makes them likely to engage in radical acts for their religion. In which case, it should hardly be surprising that suicide bombers are religiously motivated — nor should their impieties constitute evidence that they aren’t affected by the religious framework of Islam.

    1. Another thought: it’s not likely that an analysis of the European gentry would have revealed a particularly pious mindset. Yet, they went by the thousands to go on crusade — why?

      Wasn’t a lot of it due to primogeniture, in that all of the N+1th sons weren’t going to inherit much, were surplus to requirements, and if they hadn’t been urged to go to the Holy Land, would’ve been a large pain in the ass to the existing power structure (both Church and Lords)?

      For whatever reason, the Gulf states, the Levant, North Africa, and Pakistan produce a large number of disaffected men, a significant proportion of them who find being a jihadi to be pretty seductive. A larger proportion than, say, the number of young men in the U.S. who wig out and go shoot up a school. It’d be nice if we could find what motivates those guys to do those things, and see if we can either dissuade them from that path (or at least from waging jihad in the States), or identify them ahead of time so we can figure out who needs to be watched, and if they commit a crime, get locked up.

      1. Wasn’t a lot of it due to primogeniture

        Very old theory in Middle Ages research disproved by looking back at the nobility of Jerusalem. Plenty of first sons in that group, and at any rate primogeniture wasn’t a fixed tradition in Germany or other parts of Europe which sent plenty of kids down to die for Christ.

        For whatever reason, the Gulf states, the Levant, North Africa, and Pakistan produce a large number of disaffected men, a significant proportion of them who find being a jihadi to be pretty seductive

        My thought as well. It’d be nice to find out why, exactly, but I’m not expecting answers anytime soon (especially when answers of a certain variety will get you branded as a racist or troglodyte regardless of potential veracity).

        1. Thanks for the clarification. I wonder if the theory came into vogue around the time the Napoleonic Code was changing the rules regarding inheritance?

          All you can do is look for the truth, and let people handle the answers however they want to handle them.

      2. Back in my medieval studies courses (yeah, I was a very practical-minded student), I was taught that going on Crusade was basically one’s duty as a knight, but also that both the church and the aristocracy had an ulterior motive in sending many young knights away to fight because these youthful, highly-trained, and potentially dangerously violent men would have an outlet that did not involve destabilizing their own homelands.

        At the same time, from the point of view of the knight going on Crusade, if you survived and returned from the fight YEARS later, you stood a very good chance of acquiring both monetary treasure and glory (bragging rights) when you came back. While all knights came from wealthy families to begin with, I’m sure there were different degrees of wealth, and bringing back jewels and other goods from the Holy Lands — along with possible additional farming income from captured enemy territory — did much to fill the family coffers and get you set-up well for a comfortable middle age back at the old family castle. Additionally, if you distinguished yourself particularly well in battle, you might also be awarded an upgraded title by the king upon your return.

        1. Yep, that’s the theory I heard. Lots of young guys running around Europe with swords ain’t the best recipe for stability.

  10. … the majority are “second generation Muslims born in Europe, [and] the others are converts; almost none came as a young adult or as a teenager to Europe from the Middle East.”

    “FUCK YOU, DAD!!!”

    1. Can you blame them? Their dad is Donald Trump.

  11. I wonder how many examples these conclusions are based on? It’s interesting but is it really representative?

    1. I believe the sample size was around 7000 tracked individuals.

      1. Sure looks like enough of a statistical universe to be meaningful.

  12. That Ummah “is global and abstract, never identified with a national cause,”

    Why would it be? ISIS ne-Al Qaeda seems to operate with the ‘community’ definition of Ummah, more than the national one. The Jihadists seem to be more focused on the difference between practitioners of of Ismal vs. Apostates. They don’t much seem to care where you’re from.

    Conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Mali, Libya etc., are merely places where power vacuums appear and seem ripe for starting the global Caliphate.

    The fact that most of the committed Jihadists are entirely provincial in their thinking makes them both dangerous and globally ineffective at the same time.

  13. I got nothing constructive to add, except that it’s hilariously obvious how many of y’all did not read the full report.

    Seriously, it’s really interesting, take a look.

    1. I find that reading gets in the way of my inner thoughts.

    2. Prejudiced people don’t let silly things like facts get in the way of how they feel.

    3. I got nothing constructive to add, except that it’s hilariously obvious how many of y’all did not read the full report.

      This is the correct response to 90% of H&R posts.

    4. I did take a look. Interesting. I agree.

      But I still like Warty’s take.

  14. clearly a youth movement: almost all of them [were] radicalised to the dismay of their parents […]

    And of course those parents will always feign surprise at the radicalization of their offspring despite the fact these same parents chose to send their children to the indoctrination camps some of you call [with a very sick sense of humor, I might add] “Public Schools,” where kids learn the delicious nuances of Western self-loathing.

    Just like I am sure countless American parents feign surprise today at the strange radicalization of their children despite the fact these same parents chose to send their children to the indoctrination camps some of you call “College” where young adults learn the delicious nuances of Western self-deprecating.

  15. We Respawn in Jannah

    Well, perhaps if you treated your women better on Earth ….

  16. I’ll take their word on their motivations over that of a mind-reading political scientist. Particularly since he seems to do his analysis in a historical vacuum.

    Maybe because I was a History major, I see this as a continuation of a war that has been going on for 1400 years. Putting some modern bullshit psychoanalysis onto these guys is ridiculous – they are not different from the original nuts who followed Mohammed.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y

    1. I really thought that… I believe it was Lawrence Wright’s HBO doc My Trip to Al Qaeda was very good.

      I’m not entirely convinced that the young European kids joining Al Qaeda/ISIS are particularly different from the young Saudi/Iraqi/Jordanian/Syrian kids joining same.

      I believe that the personality traits to get someone to be a suicide bomber/attacker are largely the same– highly vulnerable to suggestion, easily manipulated etc.

      The question is, someone is bringing these alienated youth into the fold, and an interesting question would be how that is achieved from the organizational standpoint.

      1. There is probably some personality trait that separates “good / moderate” Muslims from the radical / more devout types. I can’t imagine an interpretation of the Koran that doesn’t make Mohammed look criminally insane.

      2. “someone is bringing these alienated youth into the fold” – not really. They are searching it out. Like the Army psychiatrist who kept sending emails to IS. Part of the drug war propaganda was that drug use was caused by ‘peer pressure’ so the solution is ‘just say no’. Well we all know how well that worked out.

        1. Sure, but who’s answering the phone?

          1. Doesn’t matter? Anyone. One of their friends. It’s not like some big conspiracy. It’s not like they’ll say, “Oh well no one answered so I guess I’ll just go get a job.” They are looking for trouble and they will find it one way or the other. To put it a different way, if ISIS didn’t exist, they’d create it. Same for gangs, same for drug addiction.

            1. To put it a different way, if ISIS didn’t exist, they’d create it.

              If by “they”, you mean very well financed and organized guys in the ME, then I agree.

              1. And they would call it Hezbollah, or Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, or Allah’s Buddies.

              2. And just like the drug war, if we can just get the drug lords in Colombia and Mexico then that will solve all our problems and our children will stop seeking out drugs and getting addicted. How well did that work out? Just like a kid can get ‘addicted’ off a single pill – “I tried it once and I got hooked immediately!” so too a kid will get bamboozled by a radical islamic cleric he saw once on youtube at his friend’s place. “Oh well if your child is hanging out with a different crowd then they might be getting suckered into radical islam.” LOL there is no end to the witch hunt.

        2. Eg:

          The spike in Western fighters may be in part due to this man, Anjem Choudary, a British-born lawyer turned Islamic preacher, who lives in London and has for years been asserting his democratic right to call for an end to democracy.

          Anjem Choudary: I believe Islam is superior. And will not be surpassed. So I believe that the law of God is much superior to man-made law.

          Anjem Choudary: Allah is the only one to legislate. So, obviously, in that sense it’s completely, diametrically opposed. You cannot have man legislating and playing God in Parliament, and at the same time believe that Allah is the only legislator.

          Anjem Choudary: Allah created my tongue to speak. I don’t have freedom to come here, because Allah created my feet to walk. So I walk, and I speak, and I look, and I hear according to what God says.

          http://www.cbsnews.com/news/re…..minutes-2/

          1. Fine but this shouldn’t be turned into a witch hunt for radical preachers because that will result in disaster. (Salem witch trials anyone?) A big problem with Islam is they teach that you are pious and righteous so just trust your conscience. That’s basically what these parents taught their kids, and ironically much of that was from our own “Dr Spock” parenting wisdom that teaches the same: “Your child is good so just raise it with love and everything will turn out fine.” So then the parent tells the kid: “Just trust your conscience” and then sits them down in front of the tv to learn their morals from Law and Order reruns. And then if something goes wrong we call it ‘mental illness’ but it’s the same as radical islamism. Exactly the same dynamic. The solution is to teach kids right and wrong like it says in the bible. Sorry to break it you – atheists tend to choke on that one.

            1. The solution is to teach kids right and wrong like it says in the bible. Sorry to break it you – atheists tend to choke on that one.

              *looks around*

              We do?

            2. Fine but this shouldn’t be turned into a witch hunt for radical preachers because that will result in disaster. (Salem witch trials anyone?)

              How is going after people who are converting and encouraging people to do violence the same as convicting people of witchcraft? Jihadists are real witches are not.

              The solution is to teach kids right and wrong like it says in the bible. Sorry to break it you – atheists tend to choke on that one.

              It doesn’t necessary have to be from the bible. But you are correct in that secularist can’t seem to understand that there is nothing compelling about their view of the world and many or indeed most people want more and better answers. If we don’t provide those answers someone, and likely someone we don’t like, will.

              1. “converting and encouraging people to do violence” – That is called the ‘incitement to violence’ fallacy (which is currently running rampant in Europe). There is no such thing. You can’t incite people to violence. In fact, our founding fathers realized this which is why they built free speech (and religion, which is the same thing) into the constitution. And this doctrine has been repeatedly validated – the “heckler’s veto” has been repeatedly discredited both as an excuse for violence and restriction on speech.

                1. Until Brandenburg v Ohio in 1969, the Feds did think you could incite people to violence. They still do, but the speech must be “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Which is quite a bit tougher to prove.

                  1969 is a long way away from the time of the Founders though. John Adams evidently didn’t feel as you do, dajjal, or he wouldn’t have signed the Sedition Act.

                  Realistically, if the Feds get scared enough, as they were of Communism at the time of Whitney v. California, they’ll find a way to sanction speech that threatens them.

                  As everyone here during L’affaire Woodchipper knows intimately.

                  1. That is called the ‘incitement to violence’ fallacy (which is currently running rampant in Europe). There is no such thing.

                    Yes there is. And regardless of whether you think there is, there is no way that the public is going to allow anyone Muslim or not to advocate murder and then escape responsibility when someone takes their advice.

                    1. “there is no way that the public is going to allow anyone Muslim or not to advocate murder and then escape responsibility when someone takes their advice.” – that is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever read on a libertarian message board.

                    2. Sorry dajjal but reality sucks sometimes. I don’t know what to tell you. But there is no point pretending that “hey just let the Imams preach violence as long as they don’t do anything” is in any way an option. It is just not. So the question is how do you want to deal with them because ignoring them isn’t going to happen.

                    3. Dude.. stop digging… 🙂

                  2. But you’ll have my back if I speak out freely against the mental illness cult, right? Or is that heresy that incites people to violence?

                    LOL you libertards are slimy hypocrites. That’s ok. 🙂

                    1. I agree with you about the mental illness cult. The problem is that it isn’t the same problem as the Islamic problem. One doesn’t have much to do with the other.

                    2. And I will fight for your right to believe that. Because this is America and we are the only country on earth that still actually has free speech. (Even though your belief is wrong and is the cause of much death and destruction.)

    2. Islam was designed for this war. The Dar Al-Islam must defeat the Dar Al-Harb. Inshallah, the victory will be swift in arriving.*

      *sometimes it pays to be a daemon-sultan

      1. An unpleasant truth. We would rather dance around with this amateur psychology than face it.

  17. Someone explain to me again now how “The US created ISIS”

    1. Hurt feelings and climate change – duh.

      1. And the JOOOS and also the CIA installing the Shah of Iran.

    2. Because ISIS wouldn’t have happened if we didn’t invade Iraq, duh. Would’ve been a lot easier if the US had just hung those bastards from Camp Bucca, but people’d be complaining if that happened too. And ISIS would’ve found someone else to lead them, and they’d be called something else too, probably.

      I’m just happy Vox wasn’t cited in your argument yesterday with Francisco… (Why give them anymore ad revenue than need be?)

      Thank you for stating much more clearly in your argument, what I poorly tried to do in discussing the issue with Francisco a few days ago.

      1. Look Ghost, the problem here is that the US took out Saddam and without that force for stability and good in the Middle East, everything went to hell. It was only Saddam who was standing on that wall keeping Muslims from murdering concert goers in Paris and that damned Cowboy Bush went and shot him off of there.

  18. I wonder how much of this is due to the anti-Western tendencies of the left, and the fact that over the last few decades, they have attained near-complete control over the public education system (presumably this is even more true of Europe than the US).

    Subject fully Western students to that, and you get self-loathing and self-doubt and all sorts of bizarre mental issues. Subject non-Western students to it, and you get alienation and hate, and radical hate preachers already have some basis on which to reach out.

    Having an entire generation who can expect to spend their whole lives on welfare is probably not helpful, as it breeds a mixture of entitlement and resentment toward those providing the welfare.

    1. It is one of the more remarkable things about the Left is that they act like their words could never have any effect on the way people behave, except to get other white people to bow down and follow them. The left forever wonders why Muslims hate them and do this stuff and then turns around and does everything they can to tell the world that the West is evil and racist and the cause of all of the problems in the world. If you thought that, why wouldn’t you become a radical Muslim and dedicate your life to making war on the West?

  19. Islamic terrorists do what they do because they are Muslims and in feel like it is their duty as Muslims to do it. The fact that not all other Muslims agree with them doesn’t change that fact. All this article is doing is speculating on why someone would find becoming a Muslim and killing people in the name of your religion appealing. That is nice but it doesn’t change the fact that it is Islam they are killing for.

    The world has a problem with Islamic terrorists. The fact that it also has a problem with youths being alienated that feeds into that problem doesn’t make it less of a problem. Reason does its cause no favors by lying and pretending it doesn’t. Reason has no problem calling a spade a spade in other contexts. When the Catholic Priest child molestation scandal broke, did reason deny the Priests were Catholic or claim that the problem was alienated men and not Catholic priests abusing their position to molest kids or that it wasn’t a problem the church and every Catholic, if they wanted to remain Catholic had to come to terms with? I don’t think so. Yet, Muslims are killing people by the score all over the world for decades and reason thinks it has nothing to do with Islam and no problem any Muslim should be concerned with or in anyway answerable for.

    1. LOL no. Actually this whole obsession with muslim terrorism is just one big deflection from our own, much worse, home grown terrorism problem. Which is a cult religion we call ‘mental illness’. We raised a generation of kids with the claim, “You have autism/adhd/addiction which means you have a disease of the brain and we won’t hold you responsible for your behavior” and they are now coming of age and it’s a huge problem and so we need to distract ourselves with the external ‘evil’ religion of Islam even though the cult of mental illness kills many more people. I see right through your propaganda. Nice try tho. 🙂

      1. That is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever read on here.

        1. It’s a lot, I know. 🙂

          1. We have a problem with people not understanding cause and effect. That is true. But that doesn’t mean they have to start committing mass murder. They could express that problem in more peaceful ways. And it seems Radical Islam is getting at least a few of these Reason impaired people to see mass murder as their way to express it.

            1. “Our own, much worse, home grown terrorism problem.”

              Yeah, well, when said home grown terrorists switch from shutting down college speaking engagements and dragging around mattresses to shooting down concert-goers and dragging around corpses, I will actually start to worry.

              Until then, I will just continue to laugh at their stupid antics and smile as I imagine the rude awakening they will be in for once they graduate into the real world and no longer have mom and dad to “pwotect them fwom the possibility of getting the

              1. …the possibility of getting their feelings hurt.

                Seems the end of my post fell victim to arboreal rodents.

  20. “Roy concludes that we can’t make broad psychological generalizations about this subculture, beyond the unsurprising fact that they’re frustrated and resentful. They come from a wide range of sociological backgrounds,..” Many of them “have a past of petty delinquency and drug dealing” followed by “a sudden and rapid ‘return’ to religion (or conversion), immediately followed by political radicalisation. There is a clear ‘breaking point,’ often linked with a personal crisis (jail for instance).”

    Group?

    Ans.Rock musicians

    1. The funny thing about this article is that it seems to think that because alienated people become radical Muslims that Islam isn’t the problem. We will always have alienated and angry young people. The question is, how do they express that alienation. Radical Islam gives them a reason to express it through mass murder. Thus, Radical Islam is most certainly the cause of the problem.

      1. John, No doubt they would assume th eyoung brownshirts were entirely satisfied with the status quo as they ran amuck. Their behavior had nothing whatsoever to do with the words of Hitler (PBUH)

        1. That is right. Nazism was not the problem. The problem was a bunch of angry disaffected Germans. That is exactly where this thinking leads.

        2. Modern Leftists think the way to get votes is to promise people an easy life. It works to a point.

          But the Nazis and the Jihadist promise more – they put their crazy vision out there, and promised HARD WORK – and people ate it up. Sure it’s crazy, but it works – always has.

      2. A “war against radical islam” is just throwing stones at the devil. And if you think that throwing stones at the devil is a good strategy then well you’d be a good radical islamist.

        1. No. It is just making Radical Islam an ideology that gets you killed for a loser cause. No one wants to die for a losing cause.

          1. ‘Hitler has said to them, “I offer you struggle, danger, and death,” and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet ? We ought not to underrate its emotional appeal.’ – Orwell

            1. Yes – Islam is that driven into their heads since birth, with the promise of paradise at the end.

          2. No. But the trick is to convince the crazy losers willing to die for the cause that it is a losing cause. At this point it seems like provoking war against their ideology is part of the plan.

            1. Provoking war against ideology is always part of the plan – read any manifesto ever written. The ‘trick’ is to convince Europe to end their War against Speech. But we won’t do that. Why? Because we are trying to provoke a war against our libertarian ideology – that’s just what we do.

            2. Sure it is Zeb, but it being “part of their plan” doesn’t mean we should let them attack us. They only assume they are provoking a war and plan accordingly because they figure we will fight back. if we don’t fight back, they will happily terrorize our societies into submission.

              So, yes they plan to provoke a war. And yes are fighting back is in one sense just what they want us to do. What they don’t plan for however is losing that war. Us kicking the living shit out of them and incinerating them by the thousands is not just what they want us to do. That I assure you.

              1. No, of course they don’t want or plan to lose. That would be absurd.

                Are you trying to argue with me here? Can you for once please just respond to what people actually say instead of what you imagine they mean?

  21. “My sweet, loving child turned into a monster before my eyes. It was because of drugs/mental illness/radical islam! We must wage a war against the horrible scourge of _____ and destroy it completely!”

    1. So what you’re saying is that drugs/mental illness/radical islam are bad, mmkay?

      We must DO SOMETHING!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.