linguoboy wrote:We tolerate "Stone Age beliefs" from Christians, don't we?
We tolerate their beliefs up to the point where they infringe on our rights. And in the West there is no tolerance for violence perpetrated in the name of Christianity, not even from conservative Christians. The same cannot be said for Islam. To give you a taste of Islamists' appetite for violence, according to a 2013 Pew study, a majority of Muslims in Egypt (not the most radical Muslim country) believe that apostasy and adultery should be punished with death.
Which would fix what exactly? The vast majority of those who profess "Islamist beliefs" (however you think the state would end up defining those) never commit violence; those planning to commit violence would simply conceal their Islamist beliefs.
The ones committing the violence aren't the only undesirables. That other group (let's be conservative and say 20% of Muslims in the West) who profess Islamist beliefs and agree with a literal reading of the Quran are also completely undesirable in our societies. Communities of these people are breeding grounds for terrorists.
Aren't they? If France lets Saudis walk right in without even a preliminary interview, then it's the the first I'm hearing of it.
They are probably screened for ties to terrorism, but not to Islamism.
We should stop engaging in military adventures in all sorts of places because it's a costly, ineffective, and immoral thing to do, regardless whether or not it "provokes Islamists". Discontinuing them specific in places where it offends Islamists is essentially conceding to their demands and encouraging others to adopt the same strategy.
You have a point.
I think Juan Cole has a good take on the incident
. In his view, a crackdown on "Islamism" would be playing right into the extremists' hands.
Right from the first sentence he goes completely astray.
"The horrific murder of the editor, cartoonists and other staff of the irreverent satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, along with two policemen, by terrorists in Paris was in my view a strategic strike, aiming at polarizing the French and European public."
Why do some liberals have such a problem taking terrorists by their word when it comes to their motivations? When the terrorists in Paris said they murdered those journalists to avenge Mohammad, they meant it
. When Bin Laden said he orchestrated 9/11 to get revenge on infidel American soldiers who had set up base in Muslim holy lands, he meant it.