That is the very reason I use the term Islamic law instead of Sharia Jub. The laws they have are always influenced at least by sharia and adhered to strictly at most. I believe this is a bad thing, for me, laws should be *only* influenced by what is best for the people and that the ones who make them should be putting the population first. Sharia, loosely or strictly, does not do that in any way. It segregates population and imposes harsh and unjust penalties for things which we consider freedoms in the west.
I was pedantically choosing how to interpret joeks post as he has done so many times.
About the bombers: they feel like they have links abroad and are fighting for a cause bigger than themselves. This isn't in any doubt. However as to whether anyone abroad actually knows who they are: I doubt it. Basically because Islam is worldwide they technically have links worldwide, however this is a useless point in and of itself. Using the term links as having contacts, getting arms and equipment from overseas (which is not useless to argue in and of itself), I'm saying I doubt that. But I also have just as much to go on as anyone who says otherwise so its purely speculation.
Also I'd say we are dealing with the problem here, its taking time, there is no easy fix and it is more than just a problem here, we can't just look to our own borders and screw the rest of the world. I believe that as a western power we have a moral obligation to help fight this wherever it is. Which is partly why I'm such a fan of the US, they know they're the de facto world peacekeeping service because they are the most powerful force (in ideals) for good and they do what they think is right by taking action, unlike a lot of other western countries which are content to talk about it. Sometimes it goes tits up, but at least they try.
Hate preachers are on the streets of Leicester, London, Nottingham as well as the web. The number of Muslims that go to some of these rallies is staggering. The guys on the web, sure they're bad and usually the most abhorrent in what they say. But as we know it's much easier to sit at a pc and talk bollocks than it is to actually form a rally in the street and take your hate out there. The people that *just* watch the online hate speech are less likely to actually go out and do things than the ones that attend the rallies. Free speech is fine, I have no problem in theory with them speaking hate in the streets or online but where does the line exist if there is one? Can freedom of speech protect people who are trying to radicalise otherwise moderates? Sure. Does it give them the right to be dicks? Yep. (And thank hell for that, otherwise I'd be done for) But does it give them the right to tell a group of people to attack buildings/places/people?
Worth a mention also are the number of Muslims that demonise ISIL, terror groups and preach the advancement of Muslim law to catch up with the rest of the world. I might be tempted to say that they outnumber the hate preachers online but I'd be guessing. I do look at both sides and that giant chasm in the middle. So why not let these guys gather more and more publicity until Sharia is modernised you might say? It'd be nigh impossible, they have Grand Imams and Grand Mufti (they get to wear casual clothes in mosques) but these guys by necessity follow Islam to the letter, which means that these guys aren't going to want to change The Quran (which dictates Sharia). Sunni Islam also has a sort of extra set of rules that give them their name: these are more like Buddhism where you try and emulate the prophet Mohammed, it's known as an unobtainable goal but is worthy in pursuit anyway. I don't know which take precedence but I can't imagine that they'd conflict much if at all anyway.
As a perhaps interesting aside: Muslims can eat pork and such if it is the only form of sustenance as life is valued above all. This isn't confined to Muslim life in that particular passage as far as I can tell. The groups that attack people 'for Allah' are choosing which part of the Quran to accept. Just in case that needs reinforcing.
Back to argument! The bombers that target the UK and the US (and more recently, France, Holland) are usually homegrown. They get our news but they also have access to news from abroad which (like all news) is tinted by whoever (producer, journalist, etc). The ones in Saudi, Iran whatever have censorship on loads of media so...meh I doubt they get an accurate picture of what we're doing or why.... Which is unsurprising given that the general population of those countries doesn't know either.
How do we remove Islamic law? Occupy the country and have Islamic law not matter with people using that law on their side in defense of actions to be treated as a criminal. Over a long time, the benefits of not having Islamic law would shine through and it would be accepted. This is something new I considered, if Sharia law updates to modern principles, hell, have Sharia modelled on a conservative western society but add in the 'don't eat pork and don't drink' clause. But like I said I don't think it will until either hell freezes over or the Grand Imams/Grand Mufti are modernised by force, by us. Although I don't know which would happen first
How does taking out the centre of Islam cause a drop in activity of Islamic bombers here? It moves their priorities from attack to defense, it takes away the belief in a unified Islamic world if their home provinces are gone. Places that produce terrorists after the imposition of western law: level the buildings, give them no place to hide, force them out and kill them. How many terrorists are needed to destroy what sort of area? Is that the setup for a racist bar joke? Seriously I have no idea what you're asking. If you mean how much devastation can one man cause? Then there is no answer, there are far too many variables. At least, a few kills with a gun, at most perhaps a building. Maybe you're overestimating the power of homemade explosives but they aren't capable of taking down a building unless you happen to be an architect and have stockpiled it for a while... and can get access to the building while carrying a covered wheelbarrow. Concerns about radicalising survivors? Good reason not to leave any I guess, but yeah that is a problem. Which is why it'd have to be over a long period of time. Take the population of the UK for a sec. People my grandparents age tend to have a mistrust of Germans for WW2, rationally or irrationally. People our age don't really give a damn what they did 70 years ago. Along that mentality, 200 years afterwards, nobody will care. It'll be demonised in history books and kids in school will be bored by it.
Why do they want to kill us is an easy question to answer. The Quran tells them to. How do we reduce the threat? Neutralise the threat with lethal force. And how do we neutralise the threat? I'd argue torture is a useful if distasteful part of it. You argue that it isn't...Useful, not distasteful. I don't believe they're mindless, or that you can kill them without consequence, but I do believe that the consequence is less.
