The implications of the Paris attacks

[TrueMetis]

Question, if the attackers turn out to have used fake refugee passports that proves what exactly? It's not like terrorists haven't managed to enter countries perfectly legally before.

[Hayyoth]

Question, if the attackers turn out to have used fake refugee passports that proves what exactly? It's not like terrorists haven't managed to enter countries perfectly legally before.

Are you serious? If it turns out that one or more of the attackers in Paris gained entry into Europe by claiming to be asylum seekers, you don't think that will have political ramifications? Try Angela Merkel being drummed our of office for a start and Hollande too for that matter, Allowing millions of Muslims into the EU when there is absolutely no way to perform security checks on any of them was and is a recipe for disaster.

[Relic]

Crazy concept, I know, but how about we stop selling weapons to the Middle East? Get the Russians and the Chinese on board and cut off all sales. Crack down on all known arms dealers. Or what that mean arresting far too many former and current politicians?

This refugee thing is a smokescreen, and predictable rage-bait. One in a million, ten in a million, whatever the number of militants bent on Jihad got through, its infinitesimal to the number of people in real need, on the run for their lives. The rednecks will rage about how letting in all the brown people is a gateway to disaster, but let them rage, and ignore it. They are blinded by fear and hatred. 

[TrueMetis]

Are you serious? If it turns out that one or more of the attackers in Paris gained entry into Europe by claiming to be asylum seekers, you don't think that will have political ramifications? Try Angela Merkel being drummed our of office for a start and Hollande too for that matter, Allowing millions of Muslims into the EU when there is absolutely no way to perform security checks on any of them was and is a recipe for disaster.

Yes, now can I get an actual answer instead of hysteria? 8 in millions of refugees (though only about 150000 going to EU countries) seem pretty good to me.

[Werthead]

The refugee discussion is pointless. Some terrorists may have entered western Europe pretending to be refugees, just as some terrorists infiltrated the United States pretending to be Saudi businessmen and terrorist attacks in the US and UK have been carried out by people of native origin but radicalised from abroad. It doesn't really matter how the attack and the message was delivered, just that they were delivered. If the refugee crisis wasn't happening, they would have found another way (and possibly an easier way).

The attack in Paris is extremely concerning because it signifies a key change in grand strategy from Islamic State. ISIS's primary goal is the establishment of a caliphate in the Middle-East, particularly in Syria, and the establishment of a "purely Islamic" system of government and law. This system is pretty much Islam as it was in the first 1-2 centuries of its existence and is so hardcore that even Al-Qaeda and the Taliban consider it both outmoded and archaic. This goal requires the setting up of a functioning nation-state with laws, armies, police, resources and infrastructure. It is not an organised international cell structure like al-Qaeda or a guerrilla movement like the Taliban that, if defeated, will be quite happy sitting up some mountain for fifteen years until the enemy gets bored and fucks off, at which point they will try again. Fighting on other fronts outside of the region is something that ISIS doesn't really care about if it doesn't further the goal of establishing the caliphate. They're happy to say, "Totes awesome" when someone, maybe claiming a link, attacks a newspaper (although that group was more affiliated with al-Qaeda), but ISIS is actually pretty disdainful of those who leave the Middle-East to carry out attacks elsewhere, claiming that they are weak and lack resolve for the main fight at home, even if they may still be of distant and limited use.

This means two things. The bad news is that it means that ISIS has, in its rank, some fundamentalist extremist fanatical nutjobs who disdained working for al-Qaeda because they weren't motivated enough, were tainted by foreign money and were willing to bend their morals to work alongside other organisations. So far these guys have been happy fighting in Iraq and Syria, but if they're now sending them to Europe by whatever means, that's deeply concerning. The good news is that it also makes ISIS extremely vulnerable in a way that al-Qaeda and the Taliban weren't: ISIS can be destroyed. Recapture its cities, destroy its armies and cut off its resources, and it collapses. There may be attempts to refound it or do the same thing later, but, unlike the Taliban and al-Qaeda, ISIS requires a functioning state to back it up, make it viable and make its claim to be the great Islamic caliphate and attract more Muslim recruits more viable.

The attack in France comes in the wake of serious military reversals for ISIS in the Middle-East. Peshmerga troops have recaptured Sinjar and are now poised to cut off the main supply line between Syria and Iraq. If they do that, there's an excellent chance that ISIS forces in Iraq will collapse and the Iraqis will be able to retake Mosul. That puts ISIS very seriously on the back foot. With the Americans tonight talking about the capture of Raqqa (the de facto IS capital) now being a priority, it could be that ISIS at home could be facing the beginning of the end (without, hopefully, the need for British or American or Russian boots on the ground, but that may be necessary). If that is the case, ISIS may be deciding that these kind of foreign attacks are now worthwhile commissioning. It doesn't help that, unlike Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, ISIS's core beliefs are effectively nihilistic, with them bringing about a purely Islamic world only for it to be destroyed and then everyone to go and live in Heaven forevermore. That makes ISIS willing to not just sacrifice individual soldiers, but even itself if it can cause enough destruction on the way down.

tl;dr - ISIS are getting the shit kicked out of them at home, and this may be a change in tactics to help deflect attention away from that.

[Altherion]

Crazy concept, I know, but how about we stop selling weapons to the Middle East? Get the Russians and the Chinese on board and cut off all sales. Crack down on all known arms dealers. Or what that mean arresting far too many former and current politicians?

This is very nearly identical to saying "How about all of us just stop fighting and get along?" It's not impossible in the sense that there are no physical laws which prevent it, but human beings have never behaved this way. At least as long as the Middle East has oil and possibly a good deal longer than that, it will be a place where weapons are in demand and demand usually creates supply even if a majority is against the suppliers on moral grounds.

This refugee thing is a smokescreen, and predictable rage-bait. One in a million, ten in a million, whatever the number of militants bent on Jihad got through, its infinitesimal to the number of people in real need, on the run for their lives. The rednecks will rage about how letting in all the brown people is a gateway to disaster, but let them rage, and ignore it. They are blinded by fear and hatred.

Ignoring people who disagree with you only works as long as there aren't too many of them. In France, I don't think this is the case anymore -- the FN did a whole lot better in the 2014 elections and that was before the most recent attacks. 

[Relic]

 

This is very nearly identical to saying "How about all of us just stop fighting and get along?" It's not impossible in the sense that there are no physical laws which prevent it, but human beings have never behaved this way. At least as long as the Middle East has oil and possibly a good deal longer than that, it will be a place where weapons are in demand and demand usually creates supply even if a majority is against the suppliers on moral grounds.

 

Uh huh, and at one point humans thought the moon was made of silver and light.  

[Hayyoth]

The refugee discussion is pointless. Some terrorists may have entered western Europe pretending to be refugees, just as some terrorists infiltrated the United States pretending to be Saudi businessmen and terrorist attacks in the US and UK have been carried out by people of native origin but radicalised from abroad. It doesn't really matter how the attack and the message was delivered, just that they were delivered. If the refugee crisis wasn't happening, they would have found another way (and possibly an easier way).

The attack in Paris is extremely concerning because it signifies a key change in grand strategy from Islamic State. ISIS's primary goal is the establishment of a caliphate in the Middle-East, particularly in Syria, and the establishment of a "purely Islamic" system of government and law. This system is pretty much Islam as it was in the first 1-2 centuries of its existence and is so hardcore that even Al-Qaeda and the Taliban consider it both outmoded and archaic. This goal requires the setting up of a functioning nation-state with laws, armies, police, resources and infrastructure. It is not an organised international cell structure like al-Qaeda or a guerrilla movement like the Taliban that, if defeated, will be quite happy sitting up some mountain for fifteen years until the enemy gets bored and fucks off, at which point they will try again. Fighting on other fronts outside of the region is something that ISIS doesn't really care about if it doesn't further the goal of establishing the caliphate. They're happy to say, "Totes awesome" when someone, maybe claiming a link, attacks a newspaper (although that group was more affiliated with al-Qaeda), but ISIS is actually pretty disdainful of those who leave the Middle-East to carry out attacks elsewhere, claiming that they are weak and lack resolve for the main fight at home, even if they may still be of distant and limited use.

This means two things. The bad news is that it means that ISIS has, in its rank, some fundamentalist extremist fanatical nutjobs who disdained working for al-Qaeda because they weren't motivated enough, were tainted by foreign money and were willing to bend their morals to work alongside other organisations. So far these guys have been happy fighting in Iraq and Syria, but if they're now sending them to Europe by whatever means, that's deeply concerning. The good news is that it also makes ISIS extremely vulnerable in a way that al-Qaeda and the Taliban weren't: ISIS can be destroyed. Recapture its cities, destroy its armies and cut off its resources, and it collapses. There may be attempts to refound it or do the same thing later, but, unlike the Taliban and al-Qaeda, ISIS requires a functioning state to back it up, make it viable and make its claim to be the great Islamic caliphate and attract more Muslim recruits more viable.

The attack in France comes in the wake of serious military reversals for ISIS in the Middle-East. Peshmerga troops have recaptured Sinjar and are now poised to cut off the main supply line between Syria and Iraq. If they do that, there's an excellent chance that ISIS forces in Iraq will collapse and the Iraqis will be able to retake Mosul. That puts ISIS very seriously on the back foot. With the Americans tonight talking about the capture of Raqqa (the de facto IS capital) now being a priority, it could be that ISIS at home could be facing the beginning of the end (without, hopefully, the need for British or American or Russian boots on the ground, but that may be necessary). If that is the case, ISIS may be deciding that these kind of foreign attacks are now worthwhile commissioning. It doesn't help that, unlike Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, ISIS's core beliefs are effectively nihilistic, with them bringing about a purely Islamic world only for it to be destroyed and then everyone to go and live in Heaven forevermore. That makes ISIS willing to not just sacrifice individual soldiers, but even itself if it can cause enough destruction on the way down.

tl;dr - ISIS are getting the shit kicked out of them at home, and this may be a change in tactics to help deflect attention away from that.

Two things

 

ISIS are a wannabe state true but they're ALSO a syndicate of terrorist cells with thousands of operatives around the world. One of, if not the primary purpose of the operation in Syria is to train foreign fighters and to send them back to their own countries. If anyone thinks that the Paris attacks are a one time deal they're in for some nasty surprises.

Second I've been hearing 'ISIS are on the back foot and about to collapse' for the past 18 months. The Kurds are in no position to destroy ISIS and neither would they want to even if they could.

Know your enemy. ISIS aren't a bunch of cowards, they're brave and committed foot soldiers for Islam.

 

 

[Chaircat Meow]

The refugee discussion is pointless. Some terrorists may have entered western Europe pretending to be refugees, just as some terrorists infiltrated the United States pretending to be Saudi businessmen and terrorist attacks in the US and UK have been carried out by people of native origin but radicalised from abroad. It doesn't really matter how the attack and the message was delivered, just that they were delivered. If the refugee crisis wasn't happening, they would have found another way (and possibly an easier way).

The attack in Paris is extremely concerning because it signifies a key change in grand strategy from Islamic State. ISIS's primary goal is the establishment of a caliphate in the Middle-East, particularly in Syria, and the establishment of a "purely Islamic" system of government and law. This system is pretty much Islam as it was in the first 1-2 centuries of its existence and is so hardcore that even Al-Qaeda and the Taliban consider it both outmoded and archaic. This goal requires the setting up of a functioning nation-state with laws, armies, police, resources and infrastructure. It is not an organised international cell structure like al-Qaeda or a guerrilla movement like the Taliban that, if defeated, will be quite happy sitting up some mountain for fifteen years until the enemy gets bored and fucks off, at which point they will try again. Fighting on other fronts outside of the region is something that ISIS doesn't really care about if it doesn't further the goal of establishing the caliphate. They're happy to say, "Totes awesome" when someone, maybe claiming a link, attacks a newspaper (although that group was more affiliated with al-Qaeda), but ISIS is actually pretty disdainful of those who leave the Middle-East to carry out attacks elsewhere, claiming that they are weak and lack resolve for the main fight at home, even if they may still be of distant and limited use.

This means two things. The bad news is that it means that ISIS has, in its rank, some fundamentalist extremist fanatical nutjobs who disdained working for al-Qaeda because they weren't motivated enough, were tainted by foreign money and were willing to bend their morals to work alongside other organisations. So far these guys have been happy fighting in Iraq and Syria, but if they're now sending them to Europe by whatever means, that's deeply concerning. The good news is that it also makes ISIS extremely vulnerable in a way that al-Qaeda and the Taliban weren't: ISIS can be destroyed. Recapture its cities, destroy its armies and cut off its resources, and it collapses. There may be attempts to refound it or do the same thing later, but, unlike the Taliban and al-Qaeda, ISIS requires a functioning state to back it up, make it viable and make its claim to be the great Islamic caliphate and attract more Muslim recruits more viable.

The attack in France comes in the wake of serious military reversals for ISIS in the Middle-East. Peshmerga troops have recaptured Sinjar and are now poised to cut off the main supply line between Syria and Iraq. If they do that, there's an excellent chance that ISIS forces in Iraq will collapse and the Iraqis will be able to retake Mosul. That puts ISIS very seriously on the back foot. With the Americans tonight talking about the capture of Raqqa (the de facto IS capital) now being a priority, it could be that ISIS at home could be facing the beginning of the end (without, hopefully, the need for British or American or Russian boots on the ground, but that may be necessary). If that is the case, ISIS may be deciding that these kind of foreign attacks are now worthwhile commissioning. It doesn't help that, unlike Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, ISIS's core beliefs are effectively nihilistic, with them bringing about a purely Islamic world only for it to be destroyed and then everyone to go and live in Heaven forevermore. That makes ISIS willing to not just sacrifice individual soldiers, but even itself if it can cause enough destruction on the way down.

tl;dr - ISIS are getting the shit kicked out of them at home, and this may be a change in tactics to help deflect attention away from that.

Aren't you jumping the gun here a bit. As of yet we know very few details about the men who carried out the attacks. One is a French 'native' and another had, allegedly, a Syrian passport and may have entered Europe as a refugee. We don't know how much real contact these men had with ISIS commanders in Syria and Iraq, or whether some used to work with al-Qaeda. 

[Horza]

Aren't you jumping the gun here a bit. As of yet we know very few details about the men who carried out the attacks. One is a French 'native' and another had, allegedly, a Syrian passport and may have entered Europe as a refugee. We don't know how much real contact these men had with ISIS commanders in Syria and Iraq, or whether some used to work with al-Qaeda. 

This is a good point. As well, even if it was done on the orders of ISIS central I don't think it's that clear at the moment what the rationale for this attack was. It could be intended as a deterrent to France and other European states or a provocation.

 This goal requires the setting up of a functioning nation-state with laws, armies, police, resources and infrastructure. It is not an organised international cell structure like al-Qaeda or a guerrilla movement like the Taliban that, if defeated, will be quite happy sitting up some mountain for fifteen years until the enemy gets bored and fucks off, at which point they will try again.

This isn't the case with ISIS at all. This is an organisation that began as an al-Qaeda affiliate terrorist group, proclaimed itself the Islamic State in Iraq in 2006 despite not controlling any territory, got crushed two years later and painstakingly rebuilt itself to the point where it was able to latch onto the next opportunity - which was all of three years in arriving.

The good news is that it also makes ISIS extremely vulnerable in a way that al-Qaeda and the Taliban weren't: ISIS can be destroyed. Recapture its cities, destroy its armies and cut off its resources, and it collapses. There may be attempts to refound it or do the same thing later, but, unlike the Taliban and al-Qaeda, ISIS requires a functioning state to back it up, make it viable and make its claim to be the great Islamic caliphate and attract more Muslim recruits more viable.

All that ISIS requires to start building again is a weak and divided Iraq and Syria. There isn't at the moment a prospect of a military force capable of occupying its core territories, rooting out its underground organisation and rebuilding to ensure it never returns, because neither the Iraqi or Syrian governments are capable or trusted to do it. For as long as that's the case ISIS will remain viable.

[Werthead]

ISIS are a wannabe state true but they're ALSO a syndicate of terrorist cells with thousands of operatives around the world.

The core organisation itself doesn't have such a network, no. What you are mistaking them with are independent groups of self-appointed wannabe terrorists who have affiliated themselves, the same guys who used to affiliate themselves with al-Qaeda when al-Qaeda were fashionable. Now it's ISIS they want to hang with. These "homegrown" terrorists have shown themselves to be only occasionally effective on a limited number of occasions. People died and it was horrible, but it was also containable. These people also tended not to be the brightest sparks in the box. The French, British, American and other authorities have foiled numerous attempted attacks for every one that was successful.

The sea-change would be, if as has been implied, ISIS itself is sending its more fanatical followers who have served in Syria and Iraq directly abroad on missions sanctioned by the ISIS leadership. This would be all the more worrying because these guys are fanatics in a way we haven't really seen before. However, it has not been fully clarified if that is what has happened here.

One of, if not the primary purpose of the operation in Syria is to train foreign fighters and to send them back to their own countries. If anyone thinks that the Paris attacks are a one time deal they're in for some nasty surprises.

That has only ever been a secondary, if not trinary, concern. ISIS's primary goal is the establishment of the caliphate in the Middle-East and that is their overriding focus. In fact, they've dismissed attacks in other parts of the world as being useless if it doesn't somehow further the aim of establishing the caliphate. This particular attack they may have deemed worthwhile if it gets France to reconsider its role in the military action against ISIS and if it destabilises France (with the same result) by distracting it with debates over Islamaphobia and immigration. Or ISIS may have chosen a different tactic altogether and gone for sheer terror.

Second I've been hearing 'ISIS are on the back foot and about to collapse' for the past 18 months. The Kurds are in no position to destroy ISIS and neither would they want to even if they could.

ISIS have been on the back foot on a strategic level for a long time, the problem is that the local forces have not been able to follow through. The Iraqi army has developed a tendency to 1) run away or 2) swap sides when IS shows up, despite usually outnumbering them. The Kurds have so far been the only force to consistently beat ISIS in the field, and even they have had to withdraw when ISIS has actually thrown some heavier numbers of troops with better equipment at them.

ISIS only have about 36,000 troops available to police an area stretching for over 400 miles on one axis and fighting on multiple fronts against four distinct ground enemies (the Syrian army, rival Syrian rebel groups, the Kurds and the Iraqi Army) whilst being bombed from the skies on a daily basis. That's completely unsustainable. The only reason they haven't suffered worse defeats is because the Turks have developed a tendency to bomb the Kurds whenever the Kurds look like they're getting too successful, and all of their enemies are fighting one another at the same time.

 

Aren't you jumping the gun here a bit. As of yet we know very few details about the men who carried out the attacks. One is a French 'native' and another had, allegedly, a Syrian passport and may have entered Europe as a refugee. We don't know how much real contact these men had with ISIS commanders in Syria and Iraq, or whether some used to work with al-Qaeda. 

This is true, and ISIS's original statement did state that they had planned and ordered the attacks. The effectiveness of the attack also suggested some kind of formal training. But the precise origins of the attackers is not yet clear.

The BBC has an interesting article speculating on why ISIS may have changed tactics, pointing out that it's now more difficult to reach Syria and Iraq via Turkey after the Kurds sealed off a large chunk of the border and they may have switched to authorising home grown attacks rather than risking volunteers being arrested when trying to reach Syria.

This is an organisation that began as an al-Qaeda affiliate terrorist group, proclaimed itself the Islamic State in Iraq in 2006 despite not controlling any territoy, got crushed two years later and painstakingly rebuilt itself to the point where it was able to latch onto the next opportunity - which was all of three years in arriving.

Yes. But ISIS's primary goal is having territory and a state to control. Remove that, and it loses its claim to be the caliphate. A large part of IS's appeal and its ability to recruit from disparate strands of Islamic fanaticism (who otherwise would be fighting on their own) hinges on that.

All that ISIS requires to start building again is a weak and divided Iraq and Syria. There isn't at the moment a prospect of a military force capable of occupying its core territories, rooting out its underground organisation and rebuilding to ensure it never returns, because neither the Iraqi or Syrian governments are capable or trusted to do it. For as long as that's the case ISIS will remain viable.

 That is the exact problem. If a democratic Iraq and Syria cannot contain ISIS, and if we cannot tolerate murderous dictators keeping those forces in check, than what is the answer? Dismantling ISIS is actually rather straightforward, we could do it tomorrow if we were willing to put the boots on the ground and probably more straightforwardly than invading Iraq ever was. But stopping them, or even a completely different format of Islamist terrorism, from springing up afterwards is the real challenge.

[Horza]

 

Yes. But ISIS's primary goal is having territory and a state to control. Remove that, and it loses its claim to be the caliphate. A large part of IS's appeal and its ability to recruit from disparate strands of Islamic fanaticism (who otherwise would be fighting on their own) hinges on that.

I don't think that follows. Accepting that the group is resilient and draws support from the intense sectarian polarisation of Iraq and Syria, defeat on the ground does not deprive it of its source of replenishment all other things being equal. It took all of three years for the Anbar Awakening to unravel and all of three more years for ISIS to be in a position to declare itself the Caliphate. From defeat to success in the time it takes GRRM to write a book.

[TerraPrime]

It is scarcely surprising that the anti-refugee groups are panting at the aspect of proofing their point about the danger of allowing refugees into their countries. The point that they're missing, though, is that accepting these refugees and allowing them to integrate into a Western society will do to a lot more to reduce the reach and influence of Daesh, as opposed to forcing these refugees to return to the war-torn countries and suffer or to force them into the arms of other Islamic countries where recruiting and indoctrinating would be less monitored and more successful.

[Altherion]

It is scarcely surprising that the anti-refugee groups are panting at the aspect of proofing their point about the danger of allowing refugees into their countries. The point that they're missing, though, is that accepting these refugees and allowing them to integrate into a Western society will do to a lot more to reduce the reach and influence of Daesh, as opposed to forcing these refugees to return to the war-torn countries and suffer or to force them into the arms of other Islamic countries where recruiting and indoctrinating would be less monitored and more successful.

This is essentially the same argument as Ser Scott's and it has the same flaw: you are assuming that the refugees will integrate into Western society. It's not at all obvious that this will be the case -- it has only partially happened with the previous wave of Muslim migrants. For example, at least some of the attackers were from France:

One of the suicide bombers in Friday's attacks has been identified as Ismael Omar Mostefai, according to a French member of Parliament. Mostefai lived in Chartres at least until 2012, said Jean-Pierre Gorges, who is mayor of the French town as well as a member of Parliament, via Facebook.

...

One of the terrorists who died in Paris was identified as a 30-year-old French national from Courcouronnes in the city's southern suburbs, Molins said Saturday. That individual was involved in the attack on a concert hall, had a criminal history and was identified as having been radicalized in 2010, but that person had never been accused of terrorism, Molins said.

The current wave will pretty obviously have an even worse time of it than the previous one.

[TerraPrime]

But that is something that can be impacted by our (collective Western bloc) actions more so than what happens in Saudi Arabia or Turkey. In other words, if they're over here, we have more of a chance to try to introduce western values of plurality and self-determination than if they were over in UAE. True?

This is a struggle of ideology, between the extremist theocratic branches of Islam and the Western bloc. This is not going to be won with guns and bombs, because you cannot kill ideas. The suggestion that killing more Muslims will solve our problems with radical Islam is similar to saying that if only the British had started wiping out whole towns and cities in the colonial America then there wouldn't have been any more resistance revolutionaries - it's idiotic at face value. To the extent that Daesh and its many related incarnations are launching organized military operations, armed responses are required. But that is not the heart of the struggle. Only words can ever beat other words, and only kindness and compassion can ever beat cynicism and resentment. Beating someone who resents you up never make them less resentful, you know. We need to be vigilant against terrorist activities and efforts to harm us, but we also need to be more pro-active in promoting efforts to stabilize the region and to integrate the migrant Muslims amongst us, imo.

[Werthead]

But that is something that can be impacted by our (collective Western bloc) actions more so than what happens in Saudi Arabia or Turkey. In other words, if they're over here, we have more of a chance to try to introduce western values of plurality and self-determination than if they were over in UAE. True?

I agree, but the usual response is that we've had six (almost seven) decades of immigration from Islamic countries into places like the UK, and the first generation or two did seem to integrate well. However, the latest generations - those born and bred in countries like the UK and France and growing up fully exposed to our relatively freedom-loving, liberal countries - are statistically far more likely to be radicalised than the ones who arrived before. On that basis, although the number radicalised is statistically tiny (and, interestingly, apparently outweighed by those growing up to become secular, or Muslim in name only), the idea that simply exposing people to our way of life will be enough to turn them into people who appreciate our culture and freedom is clearly not universally successful.

I don't know what the solution to that is, or if one is possible.

[Corvinus85]

I agree, but the usual response is that we've had six (almost seven) decades of immigration from Islamic countries into places like the UK, and the first generation or two did seem to integrate well. However, the latest generations - those born and bred in countries like the UK and France and growing up fully exposed to our relatively freedom-loving, liberal countries - are statistically far more likely to be radicalised than the ones who arrived before. On that basis, although the number radicalised is statistically tiny (and, interestingly, apparently outweighed by those growing up to become secular, or Muslim in name only), the idea that simply exposing people to our way of life will be enough to turn them into people who appreciate our culture and freedom is clearly not universally successful.

I don't know what the solution to that is, or if one is possible.

Do we know the causes?

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Do we know the causes?

My hypothesis is that at least a portion is caused by angry young, who are the cause of much of the violence around the world. Except in this case they've got a cause to identify with, and if they're lucky, persistent, and clever enough, a support network to tap into.

I do remember reading, though, (after watching Four Lions) that many jihadis are actually well adjusted with supportive families, so my hypothesis can't explain everything.

[TrueMetis]

Wonder if it has something to do with the same phenomenon that causes anti-vaccine leanings.

[JonSnow4President]

Wonder if it has something to do with the same phenomenon that causes anti-vaccine leanings.

Dunno about that, but it's probably related to whatever causes people to come to physical violence (even as simple as bar fights) over everything from political differences to football games.

Some people are just violent assholes who will seize on any difference.