It was a bit obvious though wasn’t it loddrik.
Absolute madness with no solution in sight, what next?

I feel sorry for my kids (and kids everywhere). When terrorism occurred when I was younger it was generally northern Ireland related. And whatever your views on the Irish issue, there was, in general, an endgame. Now they hear about terrorism every day on the news and ask me why? Why are they doing it? What is the point? All I can tell them us that the terrorists want to kill people who believe in different superstitions (or no superstitions at all) to them. It seems to be getting worse on a weekly basis and it’s coming closer to home (we were in Nice two years ago) with positively absolutely no endgame whatsoever.

The aim, such as it is, is so ridiculous that it would be absolutely hilarious if it weren’t for the fact that innocent people were dying everyday for no reason whatsoever.

ISIS via you tube etc have made extreme brutality the baselinefor all their believers hence a remote human being is prepared to run over and shoot children – it’s the kill them all and let God sort them out approach. The answer to this problem is unacceptable to Western democracy as it will have to introduce mass surveillance, internment, auto profileing of all the population and much much worse. This is the norm and we will have to live with it

@alpin yes indeed tough times. There are many Persians in London who came after the revolution, a couple used to run the cafe I used for lunch every day back in the early 90’s

The attempted kidnapping of the RAF serviceman in UK could have ended very differently

@ loddrik…. Agree with your last paragraph 100%…

The gunman who killed nine people in Munich was obsessed with mass shootings and had an obvious link to Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik, German police say.

A guy of Iranian heritage born in Germany isn’t your typical far right candidate. Whilst he has chosen the anniversary of Brevick attack that may not be a signal of political leanings. Seems he was of the belief the other immigrant kids where somehow responsible for him being bullied. IMO not Islamically motivated as shooting yourself won’t get you the 72 virgins.

This is the remarkable moment a brave member of the public confronts Ali Sonboly, the Munich terror suspect, from a balcony in a video that was filmed on Friday during his murderous rampage at a McDonald’s restuarant.

The cell-phone video posted online showed the suspect dressed in black standing on a rooftop parking area of the mall yelling back and forth with the person filming, saying at one point “I’m German” and eventually firing shots.

The conversation has been translated from German into English by Reddit users.

Balcony man: ‘You **** a*****e you…’

Gunman: ‘Because of you I was bullied for 7 years…’

Balcony man: ‘You w****r you. you’re a w****r’

Gunman: ‘…and now I have to buy a gun to shoot you’

Balcony man: ‘A gun! **** off! Your head should be cut off you a*****e’

The gunman and balcony man begin shouting at each other.

Balcony man (apparently to people filming): ‘He’s got a gun here the guy has one’

Unseen voice: ‘F*****g Turks!’

Balcony man: ‘F*****g foreigner’

Balcony man to someone else: ‘Ey! He’s got a gun! He has loaded his gun. Get the cops here. He’s walking around here the w****r!’

Gunman: ‘I am German.’

Balcony man: ‘You’re a w****r is what you are’

Gunman: ‘Stop filming!’

Balcony man: ‘A w****r is what you are. What the **** are you doing?’

Gunman: ‘Yeah what, I was born here.’

Balcony man: ‘Yeah and what the **** you think you’re doing?’

Gunman: ‘I grew up here in the Hartz 4 (unemployment benefits in Germany) area.’

Balcony man and Shooter talk at same time.

Balcony man: ‘Yeah treatment is something for you’

Gunman: ‘I haven’t done anything here for (unintelligible) … ‘Please shut your mouth’

Balcony man: ‘You c**t you’

Balcony man to people nearby: ‘Hey, he’s on the upper floor here.’

The cameraman goes into cover as the gunman starts firing. Balcony man calls him a c***t again.

Balcony man: ‘They must have been s******g into your head’

Gunman: ‘They have not. They have not, that’s the thing. They have not.’

VIDEO: Unconfirmed video of people shouting abuse to shooter as he says “I’m a German” – @Holbornlolz https://t.co/t4AiTeYcyi

— Conflict News (@Conflicts) July 22, 2016

Here is the video of the crazy German insulting a gunman.

loddrik – Member

It’s a religion of peace you know…
I’m still waiting to be educated on which religion Loddrick is talking about.

I’m still waiting for you to spell my name right…

Well, that’s the first time you’ve asked me, so hardly still waiting loddrik – Member (cut and pasted for accuracy).
Money where your mouth was.
Which religion was it?

The answer to this problem is unacceptable to Western democracy as it will have to introduce mass surveillance, internment, auto profileing of all the population and much much worse. This is the norm and we will have to live with it

That’s funny, because I am sure that none of those things are required to stop seeing other counties as fair game for economic exploitation. Lack of equality of opportunity and prospects seem to be the key drivers I am aware of.

The developing narrative from some on here is interesting. The guy was born in Germany, had an obsession with Breivik, was being bullied at school so attacked schoolkids, carried out the shooting on the 5th anniversary of Breivik’s atrocity – but since he’s half Iranian it must be because he’s Muslim.

What rubbish.

“The developing narrative from some on here is interesting … since he’s half Iranian it must be because he’s Muslim.”

The developing narrative is the exact opposite to that. I’d even question is there is a developing narrative, hardly anyone posted since yesterday morning when the facts started to emerge, and most of those few posts have been pretty factual.

What are the odds the next person to go on a shooting spree or hack up a train load of people with an axe or drive a lorry through a crowd will be anything other than a muslim? Who’ll take that bet? Given recent events and the times we live in it seems foolish to assume anything else.

Does anyone believe Muslims don’t watch the news and think “that’ll probably be a Muslim”. Why wouldn’t they. Being logical doesn’t make you a racist. Nor does making presumptive posts on STW, it’s not reuters or the BBC.

So many people on here wanted to paint the Nice truck killer as a crazed loner, and yet when I bumped the thread because it emerged he was part of group who had conspired for months no one seemed interested. Hope, guess and speculate that it’s not a “real” Islamist until it’s later revealed that it is, then move on.

If you live in a secular democracy Islamism is at war with you, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. The west holds a heavy burden of blame for creating these circumstances but that doesn’t change the situation we are now in. The vaguery and obfuscation employed by moderate news outlets and politicians plays right into the hands of the Donald Trumps, Nigel Farrage’s and Marine LePens of this world. And it also helps maintain the quite sick status quo with the Saudi’s and Quatar.

If we cant say Islamist then we’ll never get to Wahhabist, and people will continue to ignore the real issues, like why are Britain and France making billions in weapons deals with the people who spread this ideology.

The perpetrators of these crimes are terrorists and not muslims. They hang off the badge of religion, but they are not representative of the religion. Non of the muslims I meet and work with on a weekly basis have shown any signs of being terrorists, they don’t even try convert me to their religion, we don’t even discuss religion…. It’s not important.
So you’ll understand my interest in loddrik stating the religion that he’s refering to, that I call to book the generilsation when talking about muslims and misusing the word muslim when talking about terrorists.
We don’t identify people by their religion in this country, so why be divisive and identify these as muslims? It serves no positive purpose.

captainsasquatch

The perpetrators of these crimes are terrorists and not muslims. They hang off the badge of religion, but they are not representative of the religion.

No, they are Muslims. They are Sunni Wahhabists, taking a literal interpretation of that doctrine. Who are you to doubt their faith? Who are you to doubt their convictions?

Non of the muslims I meet and work with on a weekly basis have shown any signs of being terrorists, they don’t even try convert me to their religion, we don’t even discuss religion…. It’s not important.

You probably don’t work with any Islamists. Even if you did I doubt it would make for good small talk by vending machine.

We don’t identify people by their religion in this country, so why be divisive and identify these as muslims? It serves no positive purpose.

As I said above, if you don’t correctly identify what’s going on it plays right into the far right narrative. If Islamists keeping killing people, and the media and politicians keep refusing to acknowledge or even discuss that radical islam is “a thing” then you create a perfect environment for people like Trump or LePen who don’t care to make any distinctions and who’ll say “they” are all bad.

Being logical doesn’t make you a racist.

Jumping to knee jerk reactions based on race or religion alone does though

f you live in a secular democracy Islamism is at war with you,

Its really not its mainly at war with itself and other Muslims as a quick look at a map will show you

If we cant say Islamist then we’ll never get to Wahhabist, and people will continue to ignore the real issues, like why are Britain and France making billions in weapons deals with the people who spread this ideology.

Excellent point and its because we are hypocrites and our foreign policy has no morality beyond short term self interest
We would back anyone in the middle east who was “loyal” to the West and ignore all manner of sins, foreign and domestic

if you don’t correctly identify what’s going on it plays right into the far right narrative

True what we have is a problem with a tiny % of a billion people who will resort to terrorism.

jimjam, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on the logical basis that you’re wrong.

Junkyard

Being logical doesn’t make you a racist.

Jumping to knee jerk reactions based on race or religion alone does though[/quote]

Look at everything that occurred in last 14 days. There’s nothing racist about presuming that the Munich shooting was an Islamist attack.

captainsasquatch
jimjam, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on the logical basis that you’re wrong.

Wrong about what exactly?

Wrong because you think it’s acceptable to tar all muslims with the terrorist brush, a subset of a subset is how they should be identified. I’m sure plenty of protestants would be up in arms (I know) if I were to class them all as Klansmen or simply refered to Klansmen as protestants. There are many millions of muslims who are wrongly labeled by people like you as terrorists. And this is where the divide and growth of UKIP, an its ilk, comes from.
I’ll repeat, these terrorists are not representative of the muslim faith and should not be labeled thusly.

captainsasquatch

Wrong because you think it’s acceptable to tar all muslims with the terrorist brush

I don’t, and I haven’t. Did you just imagine that I did?

a subset of a subset is how they should be identified

jimjam
No, they are Muslims. They are Sunni Wahhabists, taking a literal interpretation of that doctrine.

There are many millions of muslims who are wrongly labeled by people like you as terrorists.

There you go again. I really must have been sleep posting when I typed that all muslims were terrorists.

And this is where the divide and growth of UKIP, an its ilk, comes from.

They make political capital when people who read the koran, pray to Allah and call themselves Muslims commit acts in the name of Allah (as they see it) and everyone refuses to use the word Islam, or Islamism, or radical Islam. That gives Trump/Farrage/LePen momentum. Not objective rational discussion.

‘ll repeat, these terrorists are not representative of the muslim faith and should not be labeled thusly.

I agree that they are certainly not representative of most Muslims. But they are muslims none the less. Yes, they are a sub set within a sub set, but they are still very much muslim. That’s unfortunate, and it makes for awkward debate.

Try going to Syria and telling them they’re not Muslims. See how you fare.

jimjam
No, they are Muslims. They are Sunni Wahhabists, taking a literal interpretation of that doctrine.

Erm, you seem quite happy to label these terrorists as muslims and have even quoted yourself. As you state yourself they are wahhabi, so not muslim as it is generally understood. If this was made clearer we would have fewer attacks on innocent muslims who have no connection to terrorism.
Identifying them as muslims and not terrorists does no one any favours.
EDIT: So do yourself a favour and either call them terrorists or wahhabis, just don’t call them muslims as you get into a whole heap of trouble trying to defend your error.

captainsasquatch

Erm, you seem quite happy to label these terrorists as muslims and have even quoted yourself. As you state yourself they are wahhabi, so not muslim as it is generally understood.

Wahhabism is the state religion of Saudi Arabia and Quatar, and they spend 100s of billions each year trying to establish it as the dominate form of Sunni Islam. to clarify, I’m not “happy to label them muslims”. All I’m saying is that their Wahhabism doesn’t negate the fact that they are Muslims. They are both.

If this was made clearer

And how are we going to do that if we can’t even discuss it without you accusing me of “tarring all muslims with the same brush” and the same. We’re going down the rabbit hole here.

EDIT: So do yourself a favour and either call them terrorists or wahhabis, just don’t call them muslims as you get into a whole heap of trouble trying to defend your error.

UK backed Syrian rebels are sawing the heads off children for being spies, and you’re telling me I’m getting into a whole heap of trouble 🙄

FWIW I’m not defending my error. I haven’t made one. Sunni’s are muslims. Wahhabists are muslims. Sunni Wahhabist ISIS terrorists are still muslims. You just don’t want me to say that they are.

Merkel herself said initially they thought there was an Islamic element.

For me when I heard he had shot himself that suggested he was not a Jihadist as you don’t get the 72 virgins that way. Suicide bomb or shot by police yes but an outright suicide no

And how are we going to do that if we can’t even discuss it without you accusing me of “tarring all muslims with the same brush” and the same. We’re going down the rabbit hole here.

Erm, by calling them wahhabi and not muslim. I’d also question how many of the 5 million Saudi wahhabi are terrorists or support terrorism. It’s not a big number, is it?

This is very simple..

Jimjam – ask yourself if Islam is the problem here

If it isn’t, then you don’t need to use the words Islam or Muslim

yunki
This is very simple..

It really isn’t.

then I suggest you’re having difficulty grasping the situation

It really isn’t.

It really is.
Unless you want to cause confusion.
All wahhabis are muslim, but not all muslims are wahhabi. Using muslim as a catch all term is wrong.

It’s almost like you’re trying to say that drug related deaths at music festivals are caused by music

captainsasquatch

It really is.

I don’t think there are enough hours in the day. The extent to which Islam is or is not the issue is another discussion entirely.

Unless you want to cause confusion.

Who am I confusing? You understand what I’m saying, and the distinction I’m making. Can the general public not be trusted to be part of the same debate? Or would that lead them to question where Wahabbism comes from and then question why we sell them weapons?

All wahhabis are muslim, but not all muslims are wahhabi. Using muslim as a catch all term is wrong.

Semantics. You stated that they are terrorists, not muslims. They can be both.

yunki
It’s almost like you’re trying to say that drug related deaths at music festivals are caused by music

Try harder yunki.

It’s just that when an act of terrorism occurs and people start moaning about muslims, it’s almost impossible not to brand those people as ignorant small minded bigots..

The world’s got enough problems already thanks, without having to listen to the opinions of ignorant small minded bigots

try harder yunki

It’s a good analogy

People die at music festivals.. some of them may have been listening to rave music which has an historical association with drug use..it does not follow that everyone at the festival likes rave music, or that everyone that was listening to rave music at the festival was taking drugs..

And of the few that were high, only a couple were mental enough to take enough gear to overdose

But there will undoubtedly be a few nutbags out there saying that if we could just stop music, these deaths wouldn’t occur
Where does that leave the people sitting at home listening to classic FM on their overpriced Bose headphones?

You try harder mate

Who am I confusing? You understand what I’m saying, and the distinction I’m making. Can the general public not be trusted to be part of the same debate? Or would that lead them to question where Wahabbism comes from and then question why we sell them weapons?

I do indeed understand what you’re saying and telling you that you are wrong. You seem to insist on defending and repeating the mistake.

Who are you confusing?
There appear to be a good few idiots who could do with learning the difference. Try telling the victims that it’s only semantics.

if you live in a secular democracy Islamism is at war with you, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

I’m not at war with anyone thanks.

Forgive the hippy nature of this post, but I hope it might help a couple of you with your world view.
Every terrorist is a human.
All of their victims are humans.
Every name we give them de-humanises their acts and shifts responsibility onto a wider group, many of whom have nothing to do with the act in the first place.
Wahaabism is a problem, and it does appear to be at the heart of a lot of problems in the Middle East. However, the current spate of terrorist acts in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and Asia are as much about political and social dislocation amongst the young and poor as they are about religious doctrine.
Would so many young men be looking for answers in wahaabist violence if they were secure and happy in their own lives?
Would terrorism have gained such a foothold in the Middle East had Iraq nor descended into chaos?
If everyone had a good job, stability and security, would Daesh’s ranks be so swollen with angry young men?
Would lonely young men become so deranged as to pick up a rifle and start shooting down innocent children if the communities they live in were stable, co-operarive and caring?
The world is very complicated, no-one carrying out these violent acts does so for one or two common reasons. Each one of them has a history of experiences and situations which have led them to make such terrible choices.
It’s not wahaabists or Islamists or people with mental health issues,it’s people and until we can find a way of changing societies so people never get so desperate that they seek answers in such terrible places, we are doomed to continue this cycle forever.
It’s easy to point out what the problem is, much more difficult for us all to start coming up with solutions.

very well put Fin

thanks

It’s not just about Sunni Wahhabis is it? Do I have to post this here again? Or will the Muslim Pakistani Professor get labelled with the equivalent to being a “house ***ger” like last tine?

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2015/s4327230.htm

CATHERINE BURN, NSW DEPUTY POLICE COMMISSIONER: It’s a very, very serious concern that in the heart of our community, there is attack planning that is under way and that may have led to what we saw on Friday.

EMMA ALBERICI: New South Wales Premier Mike Baird said it was clear to him that Sydney had a problem with Islamic radicalisation.

MIKE BAIRD, NSW PREMIER: We need to understand that we are in a new world. The risks that are emerging are new. We have to adapt to them. We have to respond and we will. But certainly, my strong assurance to the people of NSW is that our schools are safe.

EMMA ALBERICI: My guest tonight is Hussain Nadim, a counter-radicalisation academic. He’s studied at Cambridge and Oxford and is adjunct fellow at International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King’s College in London. He’s in Australia pursuing a PhD in government and public policy at the University of Sydney.

Welcome to Lateline.

HUSSAIN NADIM, COUNTER-RADICALISATION RESEARCHER: Thank you for having me on.

EMMA ALBERICI: What is it that drives young people to become radicalised?

HUSSAIN NADIM: Radicalisation itself is a very vast subject. The problem starts when we try to simplify it for policy making or, for that matter, mass consumption. And to distinguish radicalisation is a very important thing which we haven’t been able to do over here in Australia or for that matter in the UK and in the US as well. And radicalisation itself is not bad. This is one of the things that we need to understand.

EMMA ALBERICI: Is not bad?

HUSSAIN NADIM: Is not bad. The reason because, radicalisation itself is only a process, and that process is the one which triggers an individual to act in a particular way. Now that action could be positive or that action could be negative. So radicalisation really itself could be either positive radicalisation or negative radicalisation.

EMMA ALBERICI: Well let me rephrase the question and ask you: what drives people to get involved in violent extremism?

HUSSAIN NADIM: In violent extremism. That’s important. The reason why I distinguish between positive and negative radicalisation is very important because when we talk about violent extremism, that’s where we often slip into the radicalisation element where we somehow (inaudible) a lot of concepts, which tends to trigger the community into a defensive mode. And which is why we see a lot of Muslims who might not be radical enough, but they start feeling the us versus – against the other divide and which drives a lot of Muslims towards radicalisation. But radicalisation, really when we speak about in the context of today world, is more about how the Muslims are looking at the world itself. There are certain ideological underpinnings that a lot of Muslims go through during their childhood, especially when their parents teach them certain things when they’re living in the Western world which kind of secludes them from the rest of the society. And once that thing starts happening and I’ve been an advocate of this idea that radicalisation has really nothing to do with religion. I mean, there has been a study by (inaudible) University in London which completely details that radicalisation has not much to do with religion. It doesn’t have much to do either with poverty or social status. A lot of people tend to believe, specifically in the Muslim community, that it’s social status that drives radicalisation. Well that’s not true at all. Radicalisation is really about the identity crisis and how that triggers a lot of these kids into questioning why they are here, what they want to do.

EMMA ALBERICI: So you’re saying they don’t feel like they fit in to the Western society in which they live?

HUSSAIN NADIM: And it’s very hard for them to fit in. I mean, look at what the basic problem with the Muslim community over here is. The parents want to teach their children to stay away from certain evils of what they see as the Western society – stay away from alcohol, stay away from dating. That’s not what they see as a Muslim culture. So they – in order to attempt to that, the Muslim parents convert – teach these kids very ultra-conservative ideology of Islam. Now, when they grow up and they go to the universities or schools, that’s where they see their ideology and their teachings coming head-on with the Australian culture. And then they question their parents, that they were taught about this certain thing, but this is not how it is. And then they look for answers and the way they find their answers is not through parents. They look for the answers on social media and that social media has a monopoly of the religious radicals as well.

EMMA ALBERICI: So, let me ask you – I mean, governments in Australia, in the US and the UK have poured millions of dollars over the past decade into counter-radicalisation programs. Do they work?

HUSSAIN NADIM: So far, the problem is: how do you measure radicalisation? The Government has been spending millions and billions of dollars on radicalisation without any monitoring or evaluations. If you ask the Government over here, what the results are, they don’t know because they haven’t done the monitoring and evaluation. And how do you gauge? For instance, the Government spends a lot of money on trying to moderate – modernise and moderate Muslims who are at risk. How do you define who is at risk?

EMMA ALBERICI: How do you define who’s at risk?

HUSSAIN NADIM: I mean, it’s impossible to define it. I mean, anybody could be harbouring any sort of support for ISIS in Iraq, but he hasn’t been acting. How do you define that person as a threat to the national security of Australia so that it becomes problematic?

EMMA ALBERICI: You recently wrote in the Lowy Interpreter that Muslim community leaders are not experts on the subject of radicalisation. Yet aren’t they in the main the people governments go to for advice, and if not them, who?

HUSSAIN NADIM: I’ve severely criticised openly and I’ve gotten a backlash on that as well. I don’t think Muslim community leaders represent the Muslims over here, specifically the youth. They don’t connect. The youth has changed, the technology has changed and a lot of times these Muslim community leaders, who the Government use to understand radicalisation, they’re not subject experts. Now radicalisation itself is a huge subject. You can’t understand that just because you represent – you think you represent a few people, you become the voice of those people. They could be the voice, but subject experts and representing them and understanding radicalisation, I don’t think Muslim community (inaudible) …

EMMA ALBERICI: Are you saying there’s a generational gap there?

HUSSAIN NADIM: There is a generational gap. There is a huge technology gap, the generation gap. A lot of Muslim community leaders tend to think that radicalisation is occurring because somehow their issues are (inaudible) in the ’70s, the economic – less opportunity and etc. as they (inaudible) the new class. If you look at the patterns of radicalisation all across Europe, US and also in Australia, it’s not because these kids have any lack of opportunity. A 16-year-old kid who did what he did in Parramatta wasn’t doing it because he thought, “I wouldn’t get a job.” He was just 16 years, still in school.

EMMA ALBERICI: So why did he do it yet?

HUSSAIN NADIM: That’s because of ideology.

EMMA ALBERICI: I mean, we don’t know yet, but is it attached to a religious belief?

HUSSAIN NADIM: No. I don’t think religion – religious (inaudible), because frankly I don’t think in a 16-year-old kid is that religiously inclined that he would act on behalf of religion.

EMMA ALBERICI: So what is the ideology that makes him commit such a heinous act?

HUSSAIN NADIM: The current project that I’m doing is specifically on this subject, on understanding the Muslim world view and that is at the centre of understanding radicalisation. There are certain themes that Muslims have grown up, in fact my own self, we were grown up believing certain things. One of the themes was that there would be a clash of civilisation eventually. There will be a resurgence of Islam, partly because of the entire colonisation period, Muslims have been mobilised by communities, there will come have a time when we will have our glory back. So that idea has kind of, like, travelled down to today where Muslims are looking at resurgence of Islam in a sort of global khilafah. The second idea is that Muslims generally feel that Islam is under attack. Now that has something which has very, very strong, not religiously, but politically and socially, that has a very strong value that somehow we are being under attack and the events globally might not be related to religion, but they are proving them to be right. I mean, 9/11 happened. After that there was Afghanistan. A lost Muslims said that that makes sense because 9/11 happened. But then when the US went into Iraq and then when Iran was being threatened, then Syria and all these places – I mean, look at – ask Muslims over here in Australia: who is sponsoring ISIS? And the answer you will get is that it’s the US. Now that’s something very disturbing because that’s not really true. But the Muslims are looking at this problem as something which is driven by the US foreign policy and hence they are looking at this as a very political way which they want to counter.

EMMA ALBERICI: So, what role can families play in helping to counter radicalisation?

HUSSAIN NADIM: Families are at the core of this radicalisation issue. When we were dealing with deradicalisation projects in Pakistan, we realised that the first and the foremost focal point of deradicalisation strategy has to come from the family. Now problem is that a lot of times, parenting over here is a problem. And I’ve been to this – talking about this to the Australian Government for a while now, that you cannot deal with deradicalisation of the subject. For instance, if the kid is deradicalisised, you can’t just focus on deradicalising that kid. What you need to also focus is on the parenting issue, what the parents are teaching their children. What sort of ideology they are filtering into their children. And that is what really defines whether the kids will fit into Australian society or whether they’re gonna get seclude and then go online and realise that, “Oh, this is what really Islam is.”

EMMA ALBERICI: So to an extent it’s integrating the parents as much as the children into Western society?

HUSSAIN NADIM: I think parents have to be at the core of it, more so, parents need to be deradicalise themselves or teach – taught in …

EMMA ALBERICI: Better integrated.

HUSSAIN NADIM: Better integrated.

EMMA ALBERICI: Well we’ve run out of time. Hussain Nadim, thank you very much for coming in.

HUSSAIN NADIM: Thank you so much.

Would terrorism have gained such a foothold in the Middle East had Iraq nor descended into chaos?
If everyone had a good job, stability and security, would Daesh’s ranks be so swollen with angry young men?
Would lonely young men become so deranged as to pick up a rifle and start shooting down innocent children if the communities they live in were stable, co-operarive and caring?
The world is very complicated, no-one carrying out these violent acts does so for one or two common reasons. Each one of them has a history of experiences and situations which have led them to make such terrible choices.
It’s not wahaabists or Islamists or people with mental health issues,it’s people and until we can find a way of changing societies so people never get so desperate that they seek answers in such terrible places, we are doomed to continue this cycle forever.
It’s easy to point out what the problem is, much more difficult for us all to start coming up with solutions.

People from all over the world, in fact, most of the world live in developing countries. When was the last time you heard about a Catholic African or Filipino terrorist blowing themselves up in a European shopping centre? As a lot of middle eastern secularists would put it, you’re guilty of the racism of low expectations.

Bang on Fin25