Another terrorist attack - London Bridge

[The Don]

How would your system do this?

It would be a wonderful throwback to the STASI though. Neighbours reporting on each other to settle minor scores.

The idea of elected members of the group under scrutiny to be responsible for the rest has more than the hint of a prison camp about it too.

If the situation were reversed, and looking at our village, then the people who would seek to be the community leaders are the sorts of interfering busybodies that you wouldn't want to be in charge. They are exactly the sorts of people who would report others for minor infringements, and the resentment within the community would grow.

Recco, if you want to understand this kind of dynamic, become a member of your parish council and look at your fellow members

 

[The Don]

It's not (in most cases) that the authorities don't know who the extremists are, it's that there are not enough resources to keep taps on every single thing they do.

Even if we wanted to keep tabs on the thousands (tens of thousands ?) of people who may come to the attention of the security services and/or police, do we really want to live in the kind of society where your name coming up once subjects you to a lifetime of 24/7 scrutiny ?

I was active in left wing student politics in the 1980's. That has caused me issues on a few occasions later in life even though all of my activities were 100% legal because I had come to the attention of the security services by being on a number of (entirely legal) marches and attending a number of (entirely legal) meetings.

This could be orders of magnitude worse. There would be no oversight so someone could find themselves incorrectly on a watch list and have their life destroyed as a result.

 

[The Don]

There's the rub. I'm not talking about The Don's post, but those who criticise the loudest have the least to contribute with regard to solutions. Corbyn actually boasts that this is the case. He's spent his life protesting against every piece of anti-terror legislation and not once has he proposed a viable solution of his own, other than to have more uniformed officers on the beat (or 'pigs in helmets' as he once referred to them).

It's one of the key differences IMO between "Conservatives" and "Liberals".

"Conservatives" like simple solutions to complex problems. They would rather take the wrong action than no action.

OTOH "Liberals" tend to overthink problems and end up paralysed though indecision. They'd rather do nothing than do the wrong thing.

The best teams tend to involve both kinds of characters as one tempers the other. Different complexities of problems also probably respond to different mixes (a decision whether to change a washer on a tap doesn't necessarily need to consider the feelings of all stakeholders ).

IMO there is no magic "silver bullet" solution. It's probably some combination of making less fertile ground for radicalisation (which means somehow making disaffected youth less disaffected), increased engagement within communities (together with those communities making maximum effort to engage) so that radicalisation can be nipped in the bud, or at least identified and then a good security services/policing model to gather intelligence and attempt to thwart terrorist attacks.

 

[Pianoro]

Even if we wanted to keep tabs on the thousands (tens of thousands ?) of people who may come to the attention of the security services and/or police, do we really want to live in the kind of society where your name coming up once subjects you to a lifetime of 24/7 scrutiny ?

Of course, this is also a legitimate concern which hinders (for very good reasons) efforts to prevent people for carrying out terrorist attacks.

In my opinion, as long as there is a sizeable number of people willing to be terrorists, nothing but the most draconian surveillance regime (on a Stasi level or above) would prevent them from carrying out (most) attacks. I certainly don't want this and I suspect neither would most people.

Policing efforts can, thankfully, reduce the number of terrorist attacks. But if we want to see (islamist in this case) terrorism to end, ultimately we need to stop people from wanting to be terrorists.

 

[The Don]

Recco.......

My apologies, it's Reeco - I must have avalanche transceivers on the brain

 

[Giordano]

Who is blaming the innocent? Surely we've got beyond this conflation of Muslims and Islam. Identifying Islam as the primary factor and the source of much of this terrorism, violence, intolerance and fascism is not, in itself, blaming anybody. Do we wring our hands with worry that we will victimise the millions of peaceful, law-abiding right-wingers in this country when we criticise the white nationalist mentality and identify it as unwanted?



And that attitude is why we're in the state we're in. We refuse to apply the laws and cultural mores that everybody else abides by to one specific set of people. "Oh, we mustn't enforce our progressive values and laws in our own country because it might offend the Muslims." That's why we have people blowing themselves up at concerts, that's why we have tens of thousands of girls raped over a period of 30 years and literally nothing is done to stop it. If 'billions' of Muslims are angered by our liberal society then that's their problem, and what's more it says a lot about their real attitudes.



No.



At this stage, not really. Initially that would have been a fine sentiment we could both agree with. When Islam first started taking hold in this country what we should have done is welcome it, and welcome Muslims, but at the same time make it clear that followers of the religion would be granted no special status. Sexism, homophobia, racism, discrimination, threats and violence would be met with exactly the same sanctions as if they'd been perpetrated by any other member of society, whether they happened on the street, in a mosque, in a park or on social media. That did not happen and now the UK is a safe space for Islamic maniacs, hate preachers and terrorists. A disease may initially be prevented by exercise and good diet, but if these are not followed and the sickness takes hold then it's time to bring out the knife. Metaphorically speaking, before certain posters start with the straw men.

You appear to be replying to a post that I never wrote. Where in my posts do you see me suggesting that any one, including Muslims, be granted more rights than any one else? You may believe that some have been, and given I am not in the UK, I do not see it appropriate for me to argue that point one way or another from only the information I can gather as an outsider. I certainly have read things from both perspectives, and I have my own opinion, but I live 6000 miles away I and will not speculate here. If anything I was in my posts (and I am now) clearly advocating equal rights for everyone and providing a progressive society for all. We agree on this goal, whatever we think is the current state of the UK society.

If you think that my suggesting these goals is a straw man because everyone surely agrees with these core concepts of equal application of the laws and of progressive society to all, then I only suggest you read many of the other posts in this thread. Many of them are quite overt proposals to treat Muslims very differently from others, not based on their political views or personal actions, but on their religion.

In the highlight you yourself co-map Islam onto terrorist ideas, and I reject that. Islam is a religion, and as all religions, has many different factions. I am Jewish- there are very conservative sects in Judaism who treat women abysmally. I would not take kindly to the concept that I register as a potential wife beater because I am Jewish. If you wish to say that there are sects within Islam whose religious views support terrorism, then it is these particular sects you need to point to; redefining Islam to mean "the bad ones" inevitably means lumping the many, many innocent good people who identify themselves as Islamic with the bad ones. And I see that as violating the core goals of a just society.

You correctly point out that it is not insulting the "peaceful, law-abiding right-wingers in this country when we criticize "the white nationalist mentality." But what you are doing is the reverse, the equivalent of criticizing all "right-wingers" (including the peaceful and law-abiding) "as the primary factor and the source of" white nationalists. You are attacking the larger group (Islam) for the evil of the subgroup (terrorists). Or you have chosen to redefine the word Islam so as to only apply it the the "bad" which if applied to your analogy would redefine "conservative" to mean Nazi. Not very useful in my opinion. If you wish to attack Nazi thought, then attack Nazi thought, not conservative thought as a whole (and I can say that even though I am not fond of conservative thinking).

 

[Giordano]

That's all very nice and tree-huggy. That might be apposite for the local parish committee over tea and biscuits, but to keep pretending the terrorist acts in Europe recenty 'are just random accidents' will make the situation worse, not better.
The longer the jihadists are depicted as cartoon character mullahs, the more frequent and extreme they will get.

For goodness sake, smell the coffee, the terrorists have declared war on us. Their killings were nothing personal. They see themselves as fighting for a cause.

If it is a war - and I have no doubt it is - then you have to fight back.

All's fair in love and war.

Imagine if the peasants rose up, Watt Tyler-style, we'd soon have the army on the streets gunning them down.

Just what in particular in my posts do you see as just too tree-huggy, biscuits and tea sweet as absurd to maintain given the current dire straits? A just society? Applying the laws equally to all? Not punishing the innocent for the actions of the guilty? Not entering into military actions without understanding if they better or worsen the situation? All of that is just too precious and cute to maintain given there is a war on (cue patriotic music from WW2 anti-Nazi films)?

You help me emphasize my point very well. We are discussing some 30 people who very sadly died from recent terrorist actions (and yes, the number would likely have been much greater if not for the anti-terrorist actions already in place). And yet you are calling not simply for strengthening these largely legitimate and accepted governmental actions, but for discarding much of what is central to our (speaking broadly remembering I am in the USA) democratic ideals and society. To "wake up and smell the coffee." To try to reduce these 30 to what, zero? Do you think that is possible? Even if you could by implicating more dramatic (dare I say Draconian?) means, how many of our rights, how much justice, how much equality are you willing to give up to reduce that number to 20? To 10? To zero? I don't see this as a useful, let alone moral, trade-off. And indeed as stated by others here, this is probably exactly what the terrorists are seeking.

Again- given you are quoting my post I must assume the ideas you feel must be rejected are those stated in my post- please don't now claim you meant something else I never proposed. You already did- if you re-read my post I took some extra effort to make it clear that terrorist actions were not random accidents. I never suggested not fighting back, yet you indicate I did. Please respond to what I posted, not to what you imagine I posted. Thanks!

And no, not all is fair in love or war. Very much the opposite. In the context of your post this is not a casual jest.

 

[Reeco]

I was being sarcastic.

Your assumption is that areas with lower levels of "Muslim" registration are areas which are hotbeds of radicalisation. I was presenting an alternative, that areas with lower levels of "Muslim" registration are areas where people care about basic human rights and so would refuse to sign up and furthermore people like me would register as Muslims and then refuse to sign up.

I was also suggesting that any society that would tolerate such a gross restriction of basic human rights is likely to be the kind of society that would actually be very interested in areas where people care about basic human rights and would seek to make life as hard as possible in those areas.

Asking all people of particular faith might be rather antagonistic and would merely make the radicalisers' work much, much easier. This is the exact opposite of what you claim to want to achieve.

What do I suggest ? I'm not sure, it's a really, really complex subject - but almost certainly not that.

Edited as too harsh (I'm in a bad mood). Apologies.

 

[Reeco]

I was being sarcastic.

Your assumption is that areas with lower levels of "Muslim" registration are areas which are hotbeds of radicalisation. I was presenting an alternative, that areas with lower levels of "Muslim" registration are areas where people care about basic human rights and so would refuse to sign up and furthermore people like me would register as Muslims and then refuse to sign up.

I was also suggesting that any society that would tolerate such a gross restriction of basic human rights is likely to be the kind of society that would actually be very interested in areas where people care about basic human rights and would seek to make life as hard as possible in those areas.



Asking all people of particular faith might be rather antagonistic and would merely make the radicalisers' work much, much easier. This is the exact opposite of what you claim to want to achieve.

What do I suggest ? I'm not sure, it's a really, really complex subject - but almost certainly not that.

Why would you seek to undermine such a system, if one was implemented?

 

[Giordano]

The key problem remains- I simply do not see how one can prevent an individual from ramming a car into a random group of innocents and killing some and injuring many. Whatever their motivation. Drunk people, people on drugs, and angry sociopaths just fired from their jobs do this (although they don't make the news as much as terrorists) and have been doing this for years. One can put down barriers in the most obvious places, but there will always be 1000 more places unprotected. How can this kind of terrorist action be stopped? It is not even something that needs to be coordinated by a central organization, nor can one reasonably expect that we can prevent everyone from becoming radicalized if we clamp down on the spread of the violent ideologies on the web, in the streets, or in the mosques/churches/etc.

Preventing ideas from spreading, even bad ideas, is not something that has worked well in the past, and driving them further underground has usually made the situation worse.

It might be possible to better control suicide bombings, but even here it seems that completely preventing access to materials that can be turned into bombs is very difficult.

Do I have a solution? Not particularly. My point in posting here is to question many of the "solutions" proposed in this thread that would undermine the core concepts of our civilization and throw away what is crucial in our civilization to achieve the unachievable. In an unthinking reaction that we do not apply to other problems that kill far more people per year.

 

[The Don]

Why would you seek to undermine such a system, if one was implemented?

Because it's a fundamental undermining of people's basic human rights.

The idea of a national register of people of a particular religion (or race, sexual orientation or political affiliation* for that matter) is abhorrent to me - and also IMO a really, really bad idea because it crystalises the (mistaken IMO) idea that the religion of Islam is under attack which in turn creates an even more fertile ground for radicalisation.

If someone sought to create a (nominally optional) register of white, middle class, middle aged males, and suggested that areas with low registration rates would come under particular scrutiny, I'd fight that too.

* - unless that political organisation was a proscribed one

 

[baron]

You appear to be replying to a post that I never wrote. Where in my posts do you see me suggesting that any one, including Muslims, be granted more rights than any one else? You may believe that some have been, and given I am not in the UK, I do not see it appropriate for me to argue that point one way or another from only the information I can gather as an outsider. I certainly have read things from both perspectives, and I have my own opinion, but I live 6000 miles away I and will not speculate here. If anything I was in my posts (and I am now) clearly advocating equal rights for everyone and providing a progressive society for all. We agree on this goal, whatever we think is the current state of the UK society.

I've long said that simply applying laws and rights equally to Muslims as to non-Muslims would have prevented most of the problems currently emanating from Islam in the UK. The fact is that historically, and continuing to the present day, Muslims have been granted a huge amount of leeway in both criminal and social spheres. Now we're faced with a situation that may be too far gone to address by simply applying the law equally across society.

If you think that my suggesting these goals is a straw man because everyone surely agrees with these core concepts of equal application of the laws and of progressive society to all, then I only suggest you read many of the other posts in this thread. Many of them are quite overt proposals to treat Muslims very differently from others, not based on their political views or personal actions, but on their religion.

In the highlight you yourself co-map Islam onto terrorist ideas, and I reject that. Islam is a religion, and as all religions, has many different factions.

Islam is an ideology, culture and religion. When you keep referring to it as the latter you make it sound like something peripheral, and imply that by identifying it as a factor in any malfeasance we are unfairly targeting an innocuous belief system. This is clearly not the case. You cannot distinguish politics from culture from religion in fundamentalist Islam, it's all the same thing.

I am Jewish- there are very conservative sects in Judaism who treat women abysmally. I would not take kindly to the concept that I register as a potential wife beater because I am Jewish.

But you must agree that if I wanted to discover why certain Jews were treating women abysmally I'd need to look to the religious texts and the culture. You'd also agree, I hope, that if I refused to consider that these Jews were treating women badly because of their religious / cultural beliefs I'd be unlikely to discover the real source of the problem. Whether or not other Jews read the same texts and didn't beat their wives would be irrelevant.

If you wish to say that there are sects within Islam whose religious views support terrorism, then it is these particular sects you need to point to; redefining Islam to mean "the bad ones" inevitably means lumping the many, many innocent good people who identify themselves as Islamic with the bad ones. And I see that as violating the core goals of a just society.

It's not a question of sects, particularly, because the problems of terrorism (which, incidentally, I see as secondary to other issues arising from Islam) are so widespread. It's very true that certain flavours of Islam are less likely to be a problem than others, but it's not as simple as naming the bad ones and ignoring the rest.

You correctly point out that it is not insulting the "peaceful, law-abiding right-wingers in this country when we criticize "the white nationalist mentality." But what you are doing is the reverse, the equivalent of criticizing all "right-wingers" (including the peaceful and law-abiding) "as the primary factor and the source of" white nationalists.

We criticise political views all the time. It's absolutely mainstream, indeed essential in a progressive democracy. A guest on the BBC can and will say that right wing views are racist. They will say that right-wingers are intolerant and xenophobic. MPs recently blamed right-wing politics as a whole (and even BREXIT!) for the murder of MP Jo Cox by a rightist nutter. This criticism happens constantly, along with criticism of every other belief system you care to mention, yet as soon as someone criticises Islam there's a shocked silence. Oh no, you can't do that! How ignorant! How bigoted!

You are attacking the larger group (Islam) for the evil of the subgroup (terrorists). Or you have chosen to redefine the word Islam so as to only apply it the the "bad" which if applied to your analogy would redefine "conservative" to mean Nazi. Not very useful in my opinion. If you wish to attack Nazi thought, then attack Nazi thought, not conservative thought as a whole (and I can say that even though I am not fond of conservative thinking).

That's an academic distinction. It's debatable. My own view is that the impact of Islam as a whole is overwhelming negative, more so than any other contemporary force in the world.

But here's the thing: Should I have said that about any other ideology or belief system, with the possible exception of Judaism (with good historical reason), nobody would bat an eyelid. The right is bigoted and intolerant! The left is naive and divisive! Christianity is a crock of pious nonsense! Evolution is a hoax! All fine, all perfectly acceptable. But if I even suggest the Islam is a source of violence and intolerance then the chorus of protest is immediate and loud.

 

[applecorped]

A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too."

The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream,the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"

Replies the scorpion: "Its my nature..."

 

[Giz]

Because it's a fundamental undermining of people's basic human rights.

The idea of a national register of people of a particular religion (or race, sexual orientation or political affiliation* for that matter) is abhorrent to me - and also IMO a really, really bad idea because it crystalises the (mistaken IMO) idea that the religion of Islam is under attack which in turn creates an even more fertile ground for radicalisation.

If someone sought to create a (nominally optional) register of white, middle class, middle aged males, and suggested that areas with low registration rates would come under particular scrutiny, I'd fight that too.

* - unless that political organisation was a proscribed one

Oh, so you are willing to see various ideologies proscribed.

 

[Pianoro]

But if I even suggest the Islam is a source of violence and intolerance then the chorus of protest is immediate and loud.

If Islam was a belief system held exclusively by white people from rural England, you criticism would be more than welcome.

 

[baron]

If Islam was a belief system held exclusively by white people from rural England, you criticism would be more than welcome.

And that's a fact. I can denounce Christianity all day long, despite the worst UK Christians do is offer you an out-of-date biscuit if you turn up at their church roof bring-and-buy sale, yet even hint that Islam might be a source of violence and you're a bigot and an islamophobe.

 

[DragonLady]

Islamic beliefs are just as broad and varied as Christian beliefs or any other beliefs. Some Muslims are very relaxed, broadminded, socially and politically progressive and all-round good eggs. Some are narrow minded bigots with some seriously horrible views.

Christian beliefs are not so varied; it's the PRACTISE that is varied.

Christian beliefs come from the Holy Bible, but Christian practices are a mish-mash of scripture, tradition, culture, etc.

One cannot be both gay, and devoutly Christian, because the tenants of Christianity do not allow a person to be gay. Period. Full stop. However, many people accept those who are gay, and continue to consider themselves Christians because they also accept or believe other tenants of Christianity.

We have people who were born into Christianity, attend church every week, and say "amen" at the end of every sentence but have never read the Bible and have never given any serious consideration to the roots of the religion.

We have people who read every word of the Bible two or three times every year, follow many of the old laws, take some passages to extremes, and will not accept those who do not. These are often lauded by their fellows as being "Great Christians" and "on fire for Jesus" and "a sterling example of Christian values".

It is what it is, and it's not a particularly bad thing, until someone uses it as a platform for violence.

I would be quite shocked if Islamic people are any different. I suspect you have those who read the texts, pray every day, follow every tenant of the religious laws to the letter, and take some things to extremes. I'm also coming to the conclusion the more extreme views are more mainstream, or at least more mainstream in some areas.

I don't think I have ever met any of the latter, but I have certainly met plenty of the former.

To the highlighted: would you know if you did? We have plenty of Christians in the USA who seem very relaxed, broadminded, socially and politically progressive and all-round good eggs around outsiders, but are much more narrow minded and bigoted when they're at home with their families or surrounded by those of the same mindset.

Well it's hard to find 'unbiased' opinions depending on what you mean by unbiased and I'm not sure what data could be shown to convince you.

Yes; it is, and I'm not sure, either. I'm willing to hear whatever argument you want to make, and read whatever data you want to point to.

How many gay Muslims for example would be evidence that Islam is not one monolithic block of belief and Muslims are not all one big mass of adherents to a narrow ideology?

A million, trillion, septaoctofilliongrillion gay Christians would not be evidence that the Bible is not against homosexuality. I suspect the same with Muslim/Islam beliefs.

Again, the TENANTS of the belief does not vary; despite how widely the PRACTISE might.

Part of my view is informed by spending time with Muslims, mixing with them in the workplace and socially, and living beside them in my community. From personal experience I would say the Muslims I have met are much more likely to be 'good easy going people' than the white folks but I don't pretend that's in any way representative or scientific.

Fine. I live waaaaay out in the boondocks, so I personally don't know a single person who claims to be either Muslim or Islamic. Nor do I have enough interest in the subject to travel an hour plus to someplace I might find one. Everything I *think* about the whole religion comes from reading on the internet or watching the news.

Another way I look at it is to consider what would the world actually look like if all or a majority or even a decent sized minority of Muslims actually believed they were at war with non-Muslims and that killing us was the right thing to do. It would be a hell of a lot different to what it looks like now that's for sure.

In what way would it look different? A huge number of Christians believe the whole USA is in the hands of Satan. They believe the separation of church and state is an abomination, the acceptance of gay marriage is a one-way trip to Hell.

But they don't act on these beliefs because of various pressures from the outside -they want to keep their jobs, keep their homes, send their kids to school (in some cases just to avoid "persecution"), and lobby the supreme court to make their beliefs into laws.

You could say the same about any murder. It's only a few people who are murderers but it continues to happen. Therefore the few murderers must be being replenished by the many. What does that tell us about whether the many think murder is OK?

True; but the subject under scrutiny at the moment is murders being committed to bring our attention to a religious tradition.

I'm beginning to suspect these attacks are being seen by the larger Islamic community as the works of "Great Believers". Just like the FLDS communities of polygamists; even those who do not participate are standing aside and allowing it to happen.

I think we are all sick of these attacks. I think you have misidentified the root of the problem. I don't even think there might be ONE root of the problem I think it's become a complex mish-mash of influencers and drivers which definitely includes religious teachings but also includes various social and political factors.

Sure; I can agree with that. Very little human behavior has just one cause. We can say "humans eat because we starve if we don't" but that doesn't speak a word about the huge range of diets, traditions, health issues and lifestyles that have grown up around this basic drive. So to say "there's one root cause of eating" is narrowly true, but obviously it's only the tippy-top pointy part of any discussion of food.

Religion and belief systems are all the same in that regard: we have a basic need to believe there is something beyond our selves, and from there on it's a mish-mash of influencers, drivers, teachings and traditions that can vary so widely it can be nearly impossible to identify them all.

Thankfully, we're only looking for ONE right now.

Turn it on it's head as well and consider that we in the West are continuing to kill many more Muslims through our attacks on them and other actions (if that's how you want to define the 'sides') than they are killing of us through their attacks. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of those military actions (put that debate to one side) its worth bearing that in mind and reflecting on it.

(nods) This is true. However, would that remain true if we just put down the weapons and tried to walk away from the situation? Or would we find ourselves on the receiving end of even more attacks?

It's also worth remembering that many more people were being killed by terrorists in Europe during the 80s when the terrorists were almost all 'homegrown' Europeans and nobody had ever heard the word Jihadi. I don't think the Quran has changed much in the last 30 years so I think there must be more to it than that.

I agree that something happened to cause the scales to tip and get this ball rolling. But as whatever it was is done, how do we UNDO it now? Or how do we mitigate the effects to try to right the situation?

I think it has to start with identifying the absolute root cause. So for me, the first question is still: Do the Islamic peoples see these terrorist acts as a problem?

Do they privately and quietly express disapproval for these fringe extremists 'round the dinner tables and in their prayer group discussions? Or do they privately and quietly express outright or tacit approval for the actions of these "Great Believers"?

If the latter, then we have a huge problem, and our easy-going live-and-let-live attitudes are going to have to change.

 

[The Don]

Oh, so you are willing to see various ideologies proscribed.

If a group specifically advocates killing others (and carries out those threats) then I have no problem with a list of its members being compiled by, and held by, the authorities.....

 

[Belgian thought]

If a group specifically advocates killing others (and carries out those threats) then I have no problem with a list of its members being compiled by, and held by, the authorities.....

And if it is an ideology that specifically advocates killing others (but not every follower carries out the teachings) - What then?

 

[DragonLady]

And if it is an ideology that specifically advocates killing others (but not every follower carries out the teachings) - What then?

Then those followers who refuse are facing constant pressure from their families, teachers, civic leaders, etc to join the ranks and recommit to their faith, heritage, traditions and values.

Then those followers who refuse are perceived as sympathetic to the enemy, with all the attendant anger, isolation, ostracism that always comes from walking away from such a group. It's social death.

Then those followers face the very real consequence of guilt by association with their enemies, and receiving the same treatment.

If the subject is criminals vs law enforcement, then LEO who spend time partying with known criminals face being looked down upon and snubbed by their coworkers, face being arrested and prosecuted if they're present when said criminals are caught breaking the law.

Religions are the same way.

If we've been seeing "mainstream Islamic beliefs" in the wrong light and failing to recognize these terrorists are actually the "True Believers". Then the peaceful, benevolent faces we're all told to accept as the "normal" are actually the backsliders and fringe members. If so, we need to recognize and correct that blunder post haste, or the killings will continue 'til one side has destroyed the other.

There is no compromise; just as the Bible does not compromise in its stand on homosexuality or witchcraft.