Just to throw a bit of added information in for the sake of argument and reference before I step back again.
This in its entirety is accurate. Radicalized terror fought through a religion has nothing to do with a "people" but a group of believers regardless of race who adhere to an ideal, one that has become exceedingly violent and widespread. Coming from a counter-terror element, there is repeated evidence to suggest that the moderates who do not police their own extremes and or work against them do inadvertently, or even knowingly if even remotely aware of the bystander effect, contribute to how terrorism is waged against a populace. It is neither racist nor phobic, as the former is not a race and the latter is "an irrational fear". Terror as a weapon is not an irrational weapon, it functions exactly as it is intended to and its effects on civilian populace are fairly measurable, especially now. It is chosen explicitly because of its ability to cow those without a willingness to fight or resist and single out the enemies who are so more coordinated or consistent attacks can be made all while putting out a call to arms for a large number of those of the faith to join in on.
You might ask, "How is this related to a child talking about improvised explosives?" and again, it does not even require extremism, it requires motives as simple as "Resist the nonbelievers." or "A true believer aids his brother, even if he disagrees." It too can evolve from there, which it often does with self radicalization; an increasing number of Islamic terrorists no longer visit known states for training, many acquire it online, in religious education in some cases, or in person through more radical places of worship. The latter of which in some cases do even exist in locations like the United States. In fact, there do exist even printed magazines that have been recovered that outline and highlight the "holy warrior lifestyle", to put it kindly, covering everything from beheading to how to and where to attack, to even some of the more modern attacks your are seeing like vehicle ramming sprees rather than explosive devices. A number of these individuals are indoctrinated by their religious sect into believing everyone who is not of their belief is their enemy, amplified by the ongoing conflict against factions like ISIS or Hamas; the moderate culture is part of this by not fighting back against their own people. Worse yet, it is considered a "duty" to do these things or assist in them, making your "non-combatants" into a passively resisting, pervasive entity that you cannot engage.
The media in many cases often refuses to acknowledge or focus upon the reality that these people, those who act on radical motives, are in fact terrorists. You can see in the countless efforts made to down play and humanize these individuals, rather than hold them or their communities accountable. More alarmingly, you are seeing an increase of support for these people in extreme political activism where they are gifted the shield of victimhood, rather than the actual victims themselves. You see them more concerned with the "twenty women and children who died", rather than the target who knowingly and willingly was using them as a shield while orchestrating hostile actions. Unfortunately the reality is, is that many of these people willfully and knowingly embrace this danger, whereas most Western peoples do not understand that these people will and do house the enemy force out of religious or regional obligations instead of their own conscious, even if they disagree; usually because they would be murdered or at best exiled.
Point being, terrorism and radicalized Islam isn't what you might remember it as during the early 2000s. It has again evolved and is more dangerous than ever, ranging from its newfound "right" to create non-norming cultures in established societies like much of Europe, to riot, rape, destroy and terrorize again in Europe, or just that it is continually undergoing a process of "norming" in other cultures, where people are told random acts of indiscriminate harm or injury are just "part of life now", namely everywhere in the First World. To be exceedingly blunt and direct, no, that is not accurate or acceptable and no, acting against those perceptions or understanding is not Islamophobia.
I will close with the fact that this is not an official statement or endorsement either. Just some personal experience.
But may I point out, Muslim is not a race. It is an ideology. No matter what every stupid front page of google has to say about it. Arab would be an accurate term. And how does that kid come to thinking about bombs? Is it just out of thin air? Does his brain unconsciously come up with that specific excuse as an instinctive defense mechanism? Or is it more likely based on learned ideas from the news story talking about ISIS? (The proper label there is “Islamophobic” but really, you read the Koran and what sharia courts believe and actually current enforce and then tell me their on par with religions like Taoism. :P)
This in its entirety is accurate. Radicalized terror fought through a religion has nothing to do with a "people" but a group of believers regardless of race who adhere to an ideal, one that has become exceedingly violent and widespread. Coming from a counter-terror element, there is repeated evidence to suggest that the moderates who do not police their own extremes and or work against them do inadvertently, or even knowingly if even remotely aware of the bystander effect, contribute to how terrorism is waged against a populace. It is neither racist nor phobic, as the former is not a race and the latter is "an irrational fear". Terror as a weapon is not an irrational weapon, it functions exactly as it is intended to and its effects on civilian populace are fairly measurable, especially now. It is chosen explicitly because of its ability to cow those without a willingness to fight or resist and single out the enemies who are so more coordinated or consistent attacks can be made all while putting out a call to arms for a large number of those of the faith to join in on.
You might ask, "How is this related to a child talking about improvised explosives?" and again, it does not even require extremism, it requires motives as simple as "Resist the nonbelievers." or "A true believer aids his brother, even if he disagrees." It too can evolve from there, which it often does with self radicalization; an increasing number of Islamic terrorists no longer visit known states for training, many acquire it online, in religious education in some cases, or in person through more radical places of worship. The latter of which in some cases do even exist in locations like the United States. In fact, there do exist even printed magazines that have been recovered that outline and highlight the "holy warrior lifestyle", to put it kindly, covering everything from beheading to how to and where to attack, to even some of the more modern attacks your are seeing like vehicle ramming sprees rather than explosive devices. A number of these individuals are indoctrinated by their religious sect into believing everyone who is not of their belief is their enemy, amplified by the ongoing conflict against factions like ISIS or Hamas; the moderate culture is part of this by not fighting back against their own people. Worse yet, it is considered a "duty" to do these things or assist in them, making your "non-combatants" into a passively resisting, pervasive entity that you cannot engage.
The media in many cases often refuses to acknowledge or focus upon the reality that these people, those who act on radical motives, are in fact terrorists. You can see in the countless efforts made to down play and humanize these individuals, rather than hold them or their communities accountable. More alarmingly, you are seeing an increase of support for these people in extreme political activism where they are gifted the shield of victimhood, rather than the actual victims themselves. You see them more concerned with the "twenty women and children who died", rather than the target who knowingly and willingly was using them as a shield while orchestrating hostile actions. Unfortunately the reality is, is that many of these people willfully and knowingly embrace this danger, whereas most Western peoples do not understand that these people will and do house the enemy force out of religious or regional obligations instead of their own conscious, even if they disagree; usually because they would be murdered or at best exiled.
Point being, terrorism and radicalized Islam isn't what you might remember it as during the early 2000s. It has again evolved and is more dangerous than ever, ranging from its newfound "right" to create non-norming cultures in established societies like much of Europe, to riot, rape, destroy and terrorize again in Europe, or just that it is continually undergoing a process of "norming" in other cultures, where people are told random acts of indiscriminate harm or injury are just "part of life now", namely everywhere in the First World. To be exceedingly blunt and direct, no, that is not accurate or acceptable and no, acting against those perceptions or understanding is not Islamophobia.
I will close with the fact that this is not an official statement or endorsement either. Just some personal experience.
1x Like
