I find it strange, very strange that we do not quietly but clearly ask:
From our Muslim fellow citizens that they prove by action what the leaders have claimed constantly, namely that these acts are contrary and unacceptable to their religion. They should immediate create formal organisation that isolated the radicals completely and reported constantly to our police and security services on any propaganda and behaviour and acts by clericals that was contrary to the laws and spirit of their chosen homelands.
In this we have to distinguish between three, not only two, types of Muslims. The first group is the majority that only seek freedom to practice their religion as others active religious citizens. Otherwise they simply want to be treated as other citizens of their Western country. The third group consist of the radical Islamist that are willing to use any type of violence against their enemies, namely both moderate Muslims and the Western supporters of the right to remain an unpolitical believer. The interesting group is the second. Here we find the different fractions believers in Political Islam. They hide behind the moderate, unpolitical Muslims, but they share the objectives of the Radicals, and they supply the “water” where the terrorist recruit and operate. Political Islam as Fascism and Communist reject liberal and democratic political systems like an invasive species. Political Islam is not just another religion, it is a threat and should be deprived of any public subsidies and rights, closely monitored and contained as any other political groups that work to undermine democracy. If we do not see a deliberately seperation between the moderate Muslims from the Islamists in the way that the Social-Democrats broke with the Communists a century ago to fight the radical leftist together with other Democratic forces, we will slide into tragedy.
Muslims should feel wellcome, Political Islam should not, because it is our enemy whether violent or not.
Since Michael Collins and the Irish War of Independence around 1920, the strategic method you employ, as a modern guerilla leader, in order to motivate and engage your own side in a much harsher and violent struggle against the “oppressor”, has been through assassinations etc., which cause the enemy to retaliate in ways that are bound to inflict substantial collateral damage in the form of killings of innocent civilians. Such losses enrage your own side considerably and cause a pronounced escalation of the hatred. Winston Churchill tried the same tactics in German-occupied Europe when he set up the SOE to launch the resistance movements. It failed to a certain extent already from the assassination of Heydrich because the Germans were capable of retaliating beyond anything hitherto imaginable. So unless you have the freedom to do that, which is of course impossible if you are a modern, civilised, democratic nation, rough and gung-hu shoot ’em up retaliation is a very dangerous counter strategy to the kind of terror we are currently facing and will almost inevitably lead to the opposite result of what is, at least publicly, being aiming at politically. Even where it is successful, it will not work forever but at some point hit back on you like a ton of lead. Hence, what the ISIS terrorists are hoping for at the moment it for the West to retaliate in the most ruthless and mindless manner to the terrible occurrences in Paris – which, unfortunately appears to be exactly what is going to happen.
Whoever said that all we can learn from history is that politicians learn nothing from it?
Your comment is worthless unless you offer an argued alternative to an escalation.
“Worthless” is a harsh term to use, Mr Clemmesen, particularly against someone who is fully in agreement with you! 🙂
(Gulp!)
Well, er, I actually agree completely with the solution you offer, I just felt that that I would back you up by defining the problem a bit more profoundly with the inclusion of historical connotations and an emphasis on its magnitude.
If we need to look for historic examples of political/military leaders who have managed to avoid, or at least diminish, escalations of hostility in cases of this kind, perhaps Werner Best is not a bad example (providing that we can exclude emotional and patriotic detest for his person and what he represented on the whole).
Kind regards, Claes Johansen (pt., TMT, Danske Liv., 1977)