As the terror attacks in Manchester, London and, more recently, Melbourne’s unfolded in the past weeks, we have broke all of them in utter horror at the violence perpetrated.
In the horror of these events, it is clear that things have changed.
Regardless of this change, which began already familiar dismissals: on the need to take hear Islam, to consider the to keep failure of Muslims, over our failure to extremists and held to tax, to our liberal values of diversity and pluralism, and the evils of political correctness. Theresa May’s “enough is enough” increased the intensity of these discussions.
Theresa May’s’ enough is enough’ risks the extremist threat trouble | Richard Barrett make
I understand the sentiment. I understand the anger. I understand and agree that questions need to be asked. I do not agree that the allegations and the debt are required, or can be portioned. It’s not lost is a tribute to the life.
If we try to find answers or, for some, looking for reasons to voice anti-Muslim vitriol that blames the Islam of the results in the same issues and same allegations. This ignores the fact that the violence perpetrated is today has changed from what it was. Stay closely on Islam concentrated hampered our understanding of this change.
We always define criminal actions such as terrorism, by the effects of the violence in the traditionally, terrorists are defined by their intention to the company to change and to force the governments to act in a specific way by the terrorist.
Terrorism by Muslims is traditionally a type of guerrilla warfare, when one side was very overwhelmed by the force and power of the other. It was a strategy of war. Muslim terrorism was never, and I wouldn’t say that, nor about the promotion of Islam.
It was almost always about land, rights, theft of natural and economic resources, and the global monetary policy, left the entire population living in Muslim countries in poverty and destitution. Even if the rhetoric of the Muslim, terrorism was almost always in pursuit of the nationalist cause.
Traditionally, the terrorist organisations of soldiers recruited in a way that could be an army – there are those that could be controlled was looking for, and were disciplined. Those who were prone to ill-considered violence, were excluded.
It is not helpful to expect Islam to explain the acts of violence that we see, both here and in Muslim countries
What has changed is that we soldier-like terrorists of a perceived higher cause. Those who will be selected, and the pursuit of the Islamic state (Isis), the membership are a completely different breed. Rather than disciplined actors, who are today’s terrorists either men troubled with a propensity for violence, or opportunistic criminals. In no way this it can be said that it is useful to the higher cause of defending Islam represent.
In the Australian context, both Numan Haider and Farhad Jabar Kahlil seemed to be deeply isolated, young men, consumed by inner turmoil. Man Haron Monis, and Yacqub Khayre, both had a long history of violence, and Khayre struggled with a drug addiction. Many of the Australian men that traveled to Syria and Iraq, the abuse of a long Tradition of petty crime and drug trafficking, or drugs. It is not insignificant that the two gangs and terrorist organizations to recruit disenfranchised young men and those in prison.
The Monis is clear, because we have a lot of information about him, but it is also true that many of the men, opportunistic who traveled to Syria and Iraq, that it was with the introduction of Isis, the cause completely, to make a Lust, violence and self – care.
This confusion of intent, the formation of personal dysfunction and pain, which means with other policy objectives, that of Muslim terrorism has now turned into something else.
Isis current strategy of attacking Western Nations not to be invaded so that it is and occupy two Muslim Nations, speaks of how deep in the flow of Muslim involvement in terrorism actually is.
We should blame Islam for terrorism? | David Shari Atmadari
Western Muslims who traveled to Iraq and Syria, had expressly the task of invading and occupying Muslim population. The new hyper-violence practiced by Isis was largely practiced, to the local Muslim population, the Western Muslims are regarded as foreign invaders.
In view of this river, the various questions asked. It is helpful, to expect, to declare that Islam, the acts of violence that we see, both here and in Muslim countries. This was always an exercise in futility. Terrorist groups like Isis, had a deeply chaotic approach of the Muslim text, and the doctrine that it was impossible to know how they arrived in their account of Islam. The only principle of organization, to be your interpretation of Islam, violence seemed to be; almost everything that Islam has been driven out of their reading.
The talk about terrorism as if it is something that shows not all Muslims, just stunning irrationality, but shows that some people can not see through their own prejudices. It denies that ordinary Muslims see their faith and hear not a call to violence or destruction of any kind.
Maybe part of the anger towards Muslims, that Islam to date not provided meaningful answers, why do Muslims commit terrorism.
None of this is designed to hide the reality that there is currently some Muslims conduct terrorism. The complexity and morphing nature of what is happening now, however, it must be recognized, and we must begin to understand in a different context, our current reality.