Political assassinations like Theo van Gogh's are not unique to Muslims.
As for terrorism, the mere fact that you have to keep resorting to it shows that your argument is not sustainable on everyday societal issues, which was the debate here.
Muslims do not like to have themselves and their religion examined in the contexts of everyday societal issues. Theo van Gogh's murder was not politically motivated but religiously motivated. So yes, my argument is very sustainable because the murderer, Mohammed Bouyeri, was a second generation immigrant. Am the first for me in the US. My nephews and nieces are second. None have any emotional ties to my origin. It would not be uncommon, and even expected, for Bouyeri to be just like any other second generations: cannot relate to parents' origin, cannot speak parents' mother tongue, and more acclimatized to country's culture than parents are.
And yet Bouyeri was dissatisfied, even when the Dutch was financially supporting him through welfare. He did not received orders from anyone outside Dutch borders. The Dutch have no political enemies the way the US does, from China to Iran to North Korea. I have a problem with the phrase 'self radicalized' and a lot of people who are willing to be politically incorrect does as well. No one can be religiously or politically biased through self realization. Bouyeri received his 'radicalization' through both local religious sources and Al-Jazeera. Bouyeri was not 'self radicalized' but intellectually and morally trained to become a jihadist in the midst of those everyday societal issues.
The Australia study is here:
Democracy in doubt | Institute of Public Affairs Australia
Only 39% of young people 18-29 believed that democracy was always the best option.
As for other countries, I heard it mentioned in a TV debate, but here's a study that shows about 22% in West Europe and 40% in East Europe do not subscribe to democracy as the best method of governance.
http://www.sydneydemocracyinitiativ...011/04/klingemann_dissatisfied_-democrats.pdf
An opinion poll? Are you serious? Do you have any ideas of the statistical pitfalls and fickleness of the respondents of these opinion polls? Do any of these gathered in mobs and demand the end of democracy? Please do not bring up the Occupy movement. They are more fringe than Islamic jihadists.
Nice try but you just switched from 'incompatible thoughts' to 'violence' as the requirement for legal action -- implicitly agreeing with me that mere thought is not enough for expulsion.
Of course we should respond to actions and not thoughts. But you have a problem with your religion being under examination the same way you see no problems for others. Those like you who are not so restrained are willing to cross the line and if there is a segment of society whose members are more disposed towards actions, I say we put that segment of society under strict observations and swiftly legally deport those who would take actions.
The disparity in beliefs is not as clear cut as the hysterical media would have us believe. There is considerable overlap amongst social conservatives of all stripes, and there are other overlaps between various other communities, Muslim and non-Muslim.
The extremist Muslim element is over-hyped by the media beyond its actual representation in the wider population and, as has so often been pointed out, is decried just as much by mainstream Muslim leaders as anyone else.
Do you know why, that despite being in flight is statistically much safer than being on the road, aircraft crashes garner much more attention than car crashes? Because of the nature of flight, humans being in an area we are not equipped to be. So when the mechanism that allowed us to defy our physical limits fails, the failure is almost always catastrophic -- death.
Same with extremism. Statistically, the sub-society where the extremists came from is generally quite safe and at least pretentiously condemning of extremism, but when the extremists do decide to act, the result (or failure) is quite disastrous for the larger society. No media over-hype here. Just deserving coverage.
This might fly with people who don't know Los Angeles. I happened to live there for quite some time and knew Vietnamese, Latino and Skinhead gangbangers -- some of whom took me to their 'hoods', guarded by guys with uzis. Rest assured that there are certainly areas in Los Angeles where someone of the wrong ethnicity would not want to be stranded after dark.
I have zero doubt that such areas exist in other major cities.
Compared to these areas, the so-called Sharia zones are kindergarten.
Please...Rest assured that if Europeans are as free with guns as America is, those Muslim enclaves in Europe would be armed to the teeth like the Bloods and the Crips. The difference here is that neither Bloods nor Crips nor Vietnamese gangs are motivated by any higher calling, like a religion that promises them perpetual virgins for their pleasure.
