Sure, but why stop there instead of going just a tiny bit deeper and identifying the money layer? You'll find it has a lot less to do with religion and a lot more to do with efforts by the House of Saud to maintain an increasingly dubious hold on worldly power. You'll also find a rat's nest of illiberal interests from nominally liberal countries with an interest in their survival. Thus, the broader desire to deflect attention from the very dark and concentrated heart of this to a much more diffuse and amorphous target like "radical islam".

Every time you're tempted to say "radical Islam" try saying "Saudi Arabia" instead. More often than not, you'll find you've hit on the more accurate term.

Just imagine an army of 500 mln or so that can be mobilized with a single fiery speech or declaration. Actually, that kind of empire or army is the wildest wet dream that Sunni radicals could have.

Finally, your numbers are absurd. 500 million? Shia? In round numbers, you're off by...a lot. ~180 million is closer to the mark, and the idea that this entire population, very young and old included, is one speech away from becoming a ferocious army is beyond insane.

I'm sorry, but the way you combined deep ignorance and wild speculation with plain bad information was ugly enough. Finishing your remarks with a needless bit of vulgarity puts them way over the top.

Seriously, this is the kind of garbage you expect to find at Trump rallies, not HN.

But take it a step further. Who funds Saudi Arabia, and why? Who backs radical Sunnis, and why? Who backs the radical Shia? Geopolitical problems have many causes and symptoms which can grow into entire pathologies in their own right when they get really out of control, as the West's idiotic power struggle with Russia in the Middle East has.

The point is that the US has its own set of deeply vested interests in these markets, and they're more than willing to tolerate what the Saudis are doing to underwrite jihadi terrorism and the Wahhabi strain of Islam that animates it if the alternative involves seriously consideration of changes to the way the developed world produces and consumes the energy it depends on.

I appreciate from your other comments that your views are nuanced, but posting something this glib about something this horrific crosses the line here.

Here's the thing. Eventually, Islamic extremism WILL disappear. Today, tomorrow, or in 100 years. The only question is how that happens.

My wife is Muslim (and dark-skinned). I married her in an Islamic ceremony (meaning I became Muslim, at least in the eyes of some Islamic authority). Her family all have Muslim names. Our children will be visibly non-white.

We're also secular, and like to do secular things. I'd love to go to Europe with her, we both have family there, and I'd love for the world to be a place where she isn't discriminated against (and she HAS experienced racism here, in Canada), either by the state, by ignorant red-necks, or by other Muslims.

The fact is, every time terrorist attacks happen, she feels it. The looks at work, the comments on Facebook. I don't remember people talking about 'deporting all the Muslims' in Canada until very recently. We (as in myself, my wife and family) have a stake in this. She didn't choose to be Muslim, but she does suffer consequences today. And she knows it can get worse. Some of her family have converted to another religion and changed their names - she's considered it as well. It would be nice if abandoning your birth identity wasn't something you even had to consider.

Anyhow, either extremism is rooted out now, or it'll be rooted out later. It'll likely be more painful later...

It shouldn't be hard to see why. Imagine reading HN and hearing your fellow users call for you to be punished for crimes you are at least as aghast at, and personally more likely to suffer from, than the rest of the HN population is.

So 'collective punishment' is already happening.

All this bullshit is already affecting our lives. We're not part of any Muslim community, but my wife has a Muslim name, and public photos exist of my Muslim wedding. My wife's been told to leave the country by a red-neck. I've seen confederate flags flying here (in Canada...). Up until recent events, Canada's been pretty tolerant. Now it's anything but. It's getting harder to play down terrorist attacks as simply an 'aberration' or an 'isolated incident'.

I'm being real, talking about real things. France woke up to the FN leading the elections. Hollande closing down a few Mosques and banning religious symbols is small potatoes compared to could happen in the not to distant future... Maybe I'm sensationalist and too controversial. I prefer the socialist dream to the conservative dream. But right now we're headed towards a bleak future...

Can you see how silly your reasoning is or do you want more jokes?

Collective punishment is a stupid, barbaric, medieval idea we've fortunately gotten rid of. You're suggesting guilt by association, it's on the level of ridiculous ideas you'd expect from groups like IS.

Second, if someone knew of his plans and didn't turn him in, they're guilty of complicity under current laws in most western countries.

Third, far-right groups are regularly 'punished' (ie. Prosecuted under various laws) for the actions of their members, even if it doesn't comprise all their members. As are gang members, etc...

Harboring, aiding and abetting criminals is punished in our society as a crime. Why not aiding and abetting extremism?

I was mostly using Breivik as a joke, I don't care for his beliefs as they have no root in reality. But for the record, Breivik has said a lot of things, indeed that he was not a religious man, indeed allegiance to Odin, but also statements like 'I consider myself to be 100 percent Christian.' He contradicted himself on many different occasions, but it'd be myopic to say he has never identified himself as a Christian. Again though, I don't care and certainly don't see him as a Christian terrorist, I was just using it for material for my joke to show how silly your reasoning is.

Anyway, on to more important things. You bring up aiding and abetting multiple times and then end your post. I don't see your point. Well I do but it's so wrong that I'm left wondering if you were trying to make another point.

The point you're making is 'sometimes people who indirectly are responsible for a crime, get convinced'. And that's true, and that's good. If you drive a getaway car for a bank robber or murderer, you're responsible.

Now, how that in any way reflects on the responsibility of say my father, who stays awake at night because he can't sleep, saddened about the loss of innocent life due to the recent terrorist attacks (I'm not making up a sob story here, take it how you want it), a man who happens to be a muslim, is beyond me. He has zero connection with these attacks, never condoned it, never supported it, never saw any indication it happened. He's simply a decent muslim, in no way different from any other, who let his own son grow up an atheist without ever making a fuss. Your idea to punish him by mere association on the basis of his religious beliefs, is again, something you'd expect from the terrorists you're so against. Further, it strengthens the very strategy that IS has, which is to recruit a billion muslims by scaring the world into resorting to medieval instruments like collective punishment of muslims you suggest, creating systems of apartheid based on religious beliefs, and pitting people like my dad against people like myself.

Collective punishment is a very distinct idea. It's not punishing the crime of aiding and abetting which is a normal and useful part of virtually every justice system on earth. Collective punishment is specifically punishing those with innocent associations. How you can not see the difference is beyond me. Next when a man does something, all men must be punished. When a black person does something, all blacks must be punished. When a computer engineer does something, all engineers must be punished. It's like I'm talking to a child with all due respect, defending collective punishment is an idea silly beyond reason. Some of the worst atrocities have happened under the guise of collective punishment and the world has created laws against it for this very reason.

Lastly I'll finish with this, and I hope you'll be convinced then. Because you must see the irony... to punish innocent people, merely because they're associated under an umbrella (a very wide umbrella, amongst which one may find many differences) of islamic faith, is to do exactly what some terrorists have done in the past... Terrorists have attacked and punished innocent people in the west, merely for their association with the west, whose governments have been responsible for various atrocities in the world. They have collectively punished and murdered innocent people on the basis of this association, including ordinary folks who resisted these atrocities, voted and marched against them, as well as punished kids who had no say in the matter. That's collective punishment, it's insane, it's immoral, and you're a supporter. I hate to throw a terrorist-supporter card on the table, but you're asking for one.

> You bring up aiding and abetting multiple times and then end your post. I don't see your point.

When the authorities recently raided various domiciles and Mosques in France, they found a bunch of weapons. Including some stashed in a Mosque. They found extremist propaganda. Some of the Paris attackers were known to police ("fiche S").

Up until now, they let these people be. Maybe they assumed they wouldn't actually carry out their radical desires. It's hard to believe no one in their community knew about their radicalism. They were given a chance to sort it out themselves. The west has been tolerant enough of those with divergent beliefs, assuming that they'll eventually assimilate.

> Now, how that in any way reflects on the responsibility of say my father, who stays awake at night because he can't sleep, saddened about the loss of innocent life due to the recent terrorist attacks (I'm not making up a sob story here, take it how you want it), a man who happens to be a muslim, is beyond me.

Is his son a terrorist? Is his brother? To be honest, I have no doubt he'd be even more upset if you were.

And I don't think he should be punished. What is 'fair' and 'just' in life is different than reality. Is it fair that innocent French people died in the Bataclan? Is it fair that Muslims died in the Bataclan (because there WERE Muslim names on the list of the dead). Is it fair that most of ISIS' victims are Muslims? Is it fair that Saudi Arabia is beheading and dropping bombs on Shias?

Today, just now, Donald Trump called for no Muslims to be allowed into the US. Is that fair? Yesterday, the Front National had a very strong result in France, and they propose much of the same (if not worse).

I'm calling for some sort of responsibility on the part of Muslims for people who become radicalised within their communities. Maybe some of my posts are controversial and maybe I use too much hyperbole. Maybe I'm too cynical about the world.

But the rise of the FN, and other extreme-right parties does have a precedent in history. It is history repeating itself. What comes after is worse...

On the flip side, my wife has also had other Muslims judge her for being too secular...

BTW, Arab-Christians are a thing, they're not named Mohammed, Ali or Abu Bakr... 'Muslim' names are distinct from 'Arab' names (ie. Are names of Islamic saints).

Good luck with that! Try convince them first that "Syed" the first name of the Muslim terrorist who carried out the San Bernandino attack is a secular name and not Islamic one then we can talk about your "Final Solution" for the Muslims.

And I'm well aware of the bigots, who attack Sikhs for what Muslims do, and attack Jews because, well, Jews...

I don't know if you follow politics, but the far right is rising in Europe. Those bigots and idiots are raising their voice. Every time there's an attack by Muslims, those idiots gain more votes... A decade ago the FN was a joke. Today there's a real chance the next French President comes from the FN.

The former means "Lord" or "Master" and the latter means "Happy" or "Gay". They're perfectly secular names.

The religious names are Mohammad's aliases plus the Big Four figures in Sunni Islam and the other big figures in Shiite Islam.

Other than these, the rest are non Islamic names. If some low level Mohammad's companion was called سعيد, this doesn't change the fact that it's a secular name.

To be honest with you, the whole thing looks so ridiculous because ( عمر Omar, فاطمة Fatima ) are considered religious but some Latinos are called Omar or Fatima. Maybe we should drop the whole thing.

> Today there's a real chance the next French President comes from the FN.

Let them have this experiment. If they're so bigoted and extreme to their own detriment, I wouldn't stop them. Let them learn by experience not to be guided by fear or populist demagoguery.

Said someone in Europe, circa 1931.

Fact is, extremism generally hurts more people than the extremists...

In Turkey, we've seen on TV or heard of many families turning in their children many many times. In fact, the suicide-bomber-brothers who killed upwards of a hundred victims in Ankara were reported to be islamic state militants multiple times by their parents. They've reported them many times to different authorities.

Death of a hundred people may be alien to French, but it is not alien to us. It's middle east, both killers and the victims are often muslims. And muslims themselves are the ones that suffer the most from this radicalism.

> Since extremist sects recruit from within moderate sects, the moderates need to be more diligent in truly eliminating the extremist element. That means more consequences to the community. Which is unfair, but it's either that or the rise of the 'Sixth Reich' in a generation because right now, we're just kicking the can down the road.

It's not easy for the moderate muslim to avoid extremism. And I speak as an irreligious agnostic. Fact is that if they are not in Turkey, they are either in direct contact with war, or a subject of a kingdom. And then there's Iran. And Turkey is not the most serene place either. Here, the west is to blame. They drew these borders in the middle east after WWI, they spoiled them in the 20th century. Now if this "Sixth Reich", if I understand you correctly, is a threaten of genocide, I will not be shocked. That is the best possible fruit of the western canon, which is built on the extermination of the other and national pride, with the motto "it's not sin if we do it".

A hundred people died in Paris, and all EU now wants to taste muslim blood. That's mundane here in middle east. The most serene of the countries has at least two wars at the border. Isis bombs mosques, kills people for being of a different sect of islam; and it rapes children, enslaves women, steals immigrants' goods here, in the middle east. Before it was Saddam, etc. But the fact is that since WWI there has been a power that killed innocent people here. Neither France nor any other europeans are in real danger. All that happened was a side effect of what they did, how they messed up the life here, always for imperial affairs.

I may go on, but I'll finish here. You're not the europe that built the Roman Empires, you're the europe that made them suffer and die. You're no more good than islamist terrorists. The world is a bad place because of your empire building games.

And that's why there's still hope for Turkey.

> In fact, the suicide-bomber-brothers who killed upwards of a hundred victims in Ankara were reported to be islamic state militants multiple times by their parents. They've reported them many times to different authorities.

Well, plenty of people do think that Erdogan is strongly sympathetic to ISIS...

> Here, the west is to blame.

Can blame all you want, but what's done is done. Canada (or rather British territories in North America) was once at war with the Americans. We were at war with the Germans (twice). We got over it.

> The world is a bad place because of your empire building games.

Don't pretend the Islamic world didn't participate in the same. How many cultures were destroyed by Islamic conquests? Remember, Turkey wasn't always Turkish. Istanbul wasn't always Istanbul.

If the West is so vengeful, why IS Istanbul still Istanbul?

I do not believe that he has emotions. It's all money and power, IMO. And he is as representative of his people as Hitler is of today's Germans. And it's not that Europe is enemies with him.

> Can blame all you want, but what's done is done.

Then you should have the same approach to terrorist attacks too. See, ideas have the bad side effect of applying to a wider spectrum than you intend.

> Canada (or rather British territories in North America) was once at war with the Americans. We were at war with the Germans (twice). We got over it.

You got over it helping each other. You didn't exterminate Germans for the bad they did. Revenge will not bring peace. It'll bring more revenge.

> Don't pretend the Islamic world didn't participate in the [empire building games.]

I'm not a muslim, and I do not have any sympathy for any religion or empire. The world progresses, and what I do not like is the pride that people try to hold on to. My words should boil down to "we are different faces of the same evil". In the end, West has had more chance to mess it up than the muslims, and they've never ceased to do so. Where are the native americans?

> If the West is so vengeful, why IS Istanbul still Istanbul?

It is Istanbul now. Who knows what'll happen tomorrow?

If it's all money and power, he's throwing his lot in with the wrong players IMO.

> Then you should have the same approach to terrorist attacks too.

I would be glad to think the same of terrorist attacks. Unfortunately they're an almost daily occurrence.

> You didn't exterminate Germans for the bad they did. Revenge will not bring peace. It'll bring more revenge.

Yes it will. And if we did nothing today, Islamists would still be seeking revenge tomorrow.

> It is Istanbul now. Who knows what'll happen tomorrow?

Here's 2 predictions.

Option 1: Erdogan gets voted out, and it returns to be a vibrant world capital.

Option 2: Erdogan stays the course, pisses enough people off that NATO sells him out to the Russians who, along with the Greeks, would love to 'liberate' Constantinople...

Not in the Europe. That's our problem.

> Yes it will. And if we did nothing today, Islamists would still be seeking revenge tomorrow.

To whom? From whom does the west want revenge. This is the question. And apparently there are some people who'd say from all muslims, or from all arabs. You, and the other guy who responded me seem to be of that ilk. There are muslims like you, who seek a revenge from the whole non-muslim. We call these fundamentalist, radicals, etc. These are identical to you, with the difference of possessing less power. I hope all the people I refer here die painful deaths, that you wish upon innocents.

:0

You're not making a great case here...

> that you wish upon innocents

Show me where I've wished bodily harm to people who are innocent. Hopefully what you're saying is a language misunderstanding, I do tend to use some flowery language when writing in English...

Bad often has to be done so that More Bad for More People won't happen.

And before we catigate Europe, let's not forget that there are a substantial number of sectarian and ethnic minority/majority tensions even inside of the Muslim governed world. No one is without blood on their hands.

I concur. I just picked the side of the rather-under-represented. Neither am I a Rome or Ancient Greece fan.

> Bad often has to be done so that More Bad for More People won't happen.

Bad will always bring more bad with it. You can try to kill all the muslims, you'll end up with another terrorist sect, just from a different religion. Or you'll terrorise other moderate muslims, should you not be able to kill them all, and make them into terrorists. A vicious cycle of violence is only broken via virtue.

Eh, we'll agree to disagree there. Find me some good in this world that isn't backed by bad somewhere in history, and I'll show you a situation where pacifist lives could have been saved with a more aggressive approach.

The authorities control all the discussion, they sift through (or plant) the evidence, and it's possible that the ISIS was indirectly funded directly from large western governments.

ISIS is the perfect Emmanuel Goldstein.

That sounds a bit like Sam Harris advocating for genocide in his book End of Faith: Sure it would be a crime, but otherwise millions would die.

That someone I hold as a model in so much could display such levels of collective madness is one of those things I use to remind myself, of how fickle we are.