Probably for much the same reasons that non-muslims aren't taking to the streets; ISIS are hardly likely to stop this campaign because of a protest march.

Muslims took to the streets yesterday. To prevent the arrest of the terrorist:

http://www.brusselnieuws.be/nl/nieuws/jongeren-gooiden-stene...

And then this happens. What are we supposed to think ?

Clearly the best response to violent and fatal intolerance....is more kneejerk intolerance.

Assuming all Muslims are ideologically the same, and that Muslims monolithically defend this sort of behavior is an asinine assumption.

That's a strawman. Nobody intelligent is claiming that. The claim is that the ones that follow this jihad ideology and islamic supremacism are too many to reasonably expect to control without starting a civil war. They are a quite large contingent of muslims as a whole and a very large (certainly 20-30% but probably far more) of muslim youth.

Rather than dismissing things as "strawmen," it would help if you clearly elucidate your claims before you make (what appear to be) broad brush statements, e.g. "Muslims took to the streets", "What are we supposed to think?".

Your original post comes across as prototypical "us vs. them", "we are the good guys" blather. Yes, murder and violence are indefensible, but otherization does nothing to work towards deeper understanding of the causes/issues at play.

> That's a strawman. Nobody intelligent is claiming that.

Plenty of Hacker News users claim it all the time, unfortunately.

They do. It's not that popular to show in the news, but it's there. Just google "muslim protests against terrorism" for many examples.

Why do Christian not protest on the street when "one of their guys" commits terrorist attacks? Breivik for example as he is in the media right now.

Religion has no part in this its only a vehicle as is Christianity. The real picture is much bigger and more complex.

And please look behind the media curtain as other have pointed out you have the internet on your hands you can get all the sources you need.

Breivik's motivation were not sourced from Christian literature, whereas suicide bomber's are (from Koran and Hadith). Young Christians are not leaving home to join the Christian State of Iraq and Syria.

You can see the distinction, surely? Islam creates space and justification for these actions in a way that Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity does not. It's a difficult to swallow pill yet it's true.

Source: Am an ex-muslim and generally interested in this phenomenon.

If you look at the history of Europe the bible was a center piece in many wars. You can use any of the religious books to rally people up to fight against the non-believer.

But my point is the current terrorist attacks in Paris are committed by people who got discarded by society with no purpose in life and they found a group who gave them a place where they felt needed and respected.

Brevik is a Nazi and he is not Christian

> You can use any of the religious books to rally people up to fight against the non-believer.

Some books are much better at this than others. And while I don't believe the bible was that prevalent in the wars of the past, even if it was, that was centuries ago. We've cast aside such foolish things yet live in a world where many people have not.

And that's our problem.

On your second paragraph - that's exactly why an ideology that can transform a person from a citizen into a terrorist because they feel marginalized needs to be addressed. There's a whole lot of marginalized people across our globe.

People are dropping from uni's to go join ISIS. The guy who perpetrated the san bernardino attacks was a born in the US and was a government worker, his wife was from a fairly influential family. The Boston bombings were committed by 2 fairly normal teenagers that weren't in any form of distress. Bin Laden was part of one of the most richest families in Saudi Arabia.

While it's true that many disfranchised individuals turn extremist it's also true that just as many of those who do are very privileged. People don't decide to join ISIS because they are poor, the do so because they are influenced to do it in a very methodical and well financed way.

> Source: Am an ex-muslim

Credit to you; that's not an easy (or particularly safe) path to walk.

Maybe we ought to settle this argument by looking at a completely neutral source:

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=islam%2C%20terror%2C...

Draw your own conclusion.

Plus I don't think you really want to make this association. Breivik was a (neo-)Nazi (e.g. [1]). If anything he supports the argument that ideology leads to terrorism (it is baffling to me that anyone would ever think it doesn't). I don't think anyone is making the argument that there is only a single violent ideology on this planet.

But I find it weird that to make your point you'd draw attention to the association between terror and ideologies. Because then you'd very quickly arrive at the obvious question : per ideology, how much terror, and at what point do we take action ? Per ideology, how much terror is something the above graph can help with.

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/anders-breivi...

They did, not Christians specifically, but I remember crowds with signs and candles.

There have been some anti-ISIS demonstrations, but they seem not to get much press: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/muslim-anti-i...

In Denmark, at the time of the cartoons controversy, there was also a group of Muslims on the other side, whose leader was elected to Parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Muslims_in_Denmark

Why aren't US christians taking to the streets to protest against the bombings of abortion clinics or murders of doctors?

When the planner of the Paris attacks was arrested yesterday, immediately ~200 muslims assembled and attacked the police and the press. How much more direct can an expression of support for terrorism get ? When the police arrest a terrorist, immediately the surrounding muslim youth attacks ... Apparently it's not a problem at all to find hundreds of people willing to commit violence in support of terror in the muslims that just happen to be out on the street in a small suburb of Brussels.

Not a single one protested the violence (although that I understand : in Brussels you won't get beaten up, or worse, for excusing or even supporting terror. The opposite stance gets you branded racist in the best case).

There are numerous places in Brussels where the tension between the police and the new "locals" is very close to the flashpoint. And to be frank, Brussels is positively peaceful compared to Paris and Rotterdam. I do not have direct experience of how it is in other cities, but I doubt these cities are the only ones. Antwerp, where I live, is also rapidly becoming a flashpoint and has been the site of muslim terror attacks against Jews. Tellingly, lots of Jews are leaving.

And let's get one thing straight. Brussels is loaded to the brim with minorities. From the black community from Congo to Lebanese and Iraqi Christian refugees, all have communities. Whilst these communities aren't without problems, there is only one community that constantly commits violence on everyone surrounding them. From "youth" randomly attacking whoever is stupid enough to get on the metro alone (and I'm a man, any woman knows that you can't take the metro alone anymore. 5 years ago, not a problem). I just want to say : it's not just these attacks, in fact, that's the least of the problems.