Terrorist Attacks - WARNING: CONTAINS DISTRESSING IMAGES

You think there is nothing this side of killing all Muslims? Killing all Muslims. Okay then.

No just asking batman for his opinion on the solution to this ****.

Clearly the west can't kill every Muslim (only a ****ing moron would suggest such a thing) but as pointed talking to the extremists isn't going to happen either.

The West will retaliate to this with violence which will create more extremists and so the whole circle will kick off again I'd love to know how people think this can be resolved.

No just asking batman for his opinion on the solution to this ****.

 

Clearly the west can't kill every Muslim (only a ****ing moron would suggest such a thing) but as pointed talking to the extremists isn't going to happen either.

 

The West will retaliate to this with violence which will create more extremists and so the whole circle will kick off again I'd love to know how people think this can be resolved.

Personally I would like to see a proper coalition of nations who oppose IS (including the likes of Russia and Iran) and a much greater effort to destroy their bases and leaders. This would involve cutting them off financially combined with military force. Part of the problem in Iraq was that we destabilised the country and then left due to political pressure before we had seen through the changes required so we should ensure that does not happen again. I would get agreements in place with neighbouring Arabic countries to assist in these operations and if needs be I would tolerate criminals like Assad in the short term as the lesser of two evils to help to bring stability to the region once the bulk of IS has been destroyed. Longer term and once the bulk of IS has been crushed, I would like to see some attempts at engagement with those survivors still disaffected. I would make clear to them that dialogue and engagement is always open but that dissent would be met with force. Whilst that is not a perfect plan, I think that's a much more realistic plan than engaging in negotiation at this time with an enemy who doesn't want to negotiate.

What is in the between then?

 

There really is no end to this cluster ****. Every time the West retaliates we create more enemies every time extremists carry out an attack westerners become more entrenched in their views on all Muslims which in turn fosters more bad feeling among western Muslim populations ( many who are second generation or older).

 

The whole thing is a vicious circle that seems unbreakable.

as Hypo said. All nations (islamic or otherwise) coming together to wipe these people from the face of the earth. That is not done by 'killing all muslims'. But an effort politically, financially and militarily.

I'd sort that out at home also. We obviously have breeding grounds in parts of london and other big cities. The security services know who they are but the moment they bring these people in from MI5 surveillance, you get people complaining their human rights are being destroyed.

Just skirting around the edges, trying to appease all groups is never ever going to work

again, that is a far cry from doing nothing OR killing all muslims in the world

No just asking batman for his opinion on the solution to this ****.

 

Clearly the west can't kill every Muslim (only a ****ing moron would suggest such a thing) but as pointed talking to the extremists isn't going to happen either.

 

The West will retaliate to this with violence which will create more extremists and so the whole circle will kick off again I'd love to know how people think this can be resolved.

You were the one asking Batman what the line in between do nothing and killing all Muslims was, suggesting you didn't think there was one. Glad you've cleared that up.

Batman post was a sarcastic to response to SOG anyway, pretty obvious when you look at it in context.

It will take a lot to break the cycle but it will involve more bloodshed before any kind of diplomatic conversations start to resolve anything.

The comparisons with Ireland and this idea we are all going to sit round the table and hug it out is facile garbage. Let's stop killing them and they'll stop killing us is utterly deluded appeasement. "What good did killing people" type thinking clearly missed how the major wars in history were actually won and peace achieved.

It's far more likely to end with the west significantly stepping up agression against this enemy or even better, encouraging the sovereign states hosting this false "Islamic State" to deal with the criminals in their own lands. These people will need to be brought to their knees, not negotiated with.

I have never advocated a group hug but lets not let that get in the way of a good p*ss take eh? I also don't believe if we stop suddenly killing them they will stop killing us. But clearly killing them isn't working terribly well for us right now is it? The attacks are escalating and it is only a matter of time before another one happens here. Splashing crass headlines across the Red Tops when we blow a terrorist apart might make certain sections of the population feel good but if it means that more Muslims become radicalised and start strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up innocent bystanders then we are only adding to the problem. This is clearly not a straightforward conflict and a successful land battle campaign isn't going to solve the problem. These people are all over the place and are amongst us all. We cant invade them or nuke them. I agree with you CBF when you say that peace is generally won when sufficient numbers of people have been killed but do you really think that can happen here in these circumstances? Those who are leading the conflict don't give a stuff about Jihadi John and his mates and probably revel in the headlines when we take one out because once again it is the big bad west attacking the poor undertrodden true believers.

You are basically arguing that we should have let JJ go... Which is utter tripe. We are at war and there will be no peace ever with the fanatics. Kill them all and stop them spreading their filth to other decent Muslims.

 

I wonder, would you have shot Hitler or Sat around and tried to talk to him? Just like WW2 people are pussy footing around the issue, allowing the axis of evil to develop a stranglehold over a region and meaning more lives will be lost when actions finally has to be taken. The human race is cursed to always repeat the mistakes of history and this time around we have no Churchill and no Roosevelt to stand up to it.

I am not saying that at all. I wonder how you are going to kill them all and what criteria you will use to decide who you will kill. You comment about Hitler is just silly. And do you really think that the second war world war was all about just one man? I don't see any pussy footing around. There are air and drone strikes against IS on a regular basis - hardly appeasement is it?

These people aren't joining ISIS because of headlines in the Sun, Soggy. This kind of mentality comes from decades of indoctrination, sinister Imams with extremist views brainwashing suggestible young Muslims. Sadly these people are beyond help or negotiation. The only way to stop this is to wipe out the leadership. That unfortunately means going in and killing the brain washers, radical clerics and bomb-makers so they can't recruit vulnerable young men.

It's a cult and basically no different to the Waco siege in it's mentality. Nobody has joined the Branch Davidians since the siege ended because David Koresh is dead, he can't preach and there is nobody to recruit and brainwash more followers. It's the same principal being played out on a much larger scale.

I don't think they are Lighthouse, but I also don't think it helps the situation in the least and can only make it easier for those doing the brainwashing to show the West as evil and a threat to them. Is a vulnerable young man going to look at that front page and think sh*t, there is a drone with my name on it. I had better not do this or will he be more likely to think I shall avenge my brother? I say this not knowing the answer but I suspect that we don't come across as some beleaguered minority trying to defend ourselves against an evil regime.

People seem to be talking past each other, as per.

IS doesn't understand costs and benefits as typically defined in international relations, except in a short-term, tactical sense. As such, it is virtually impossible to negotiate with it. Nonetheless, it does matter how the West behaves in terms of fueling injustice and encouraging recruitment. It is a treacherously delicate balancing act, dealing with an enemy that is utterly implacable, on the one hand while minimising the risks of playing into its propaganda hands through an indiscriminate response, on the other.

People seem to be talking past each other, as per.

 

IS doesn't understand costs and benefits as typically defined in international relations, except in a short-term, tactical sense. As such, it is virtually impossible to negotiate with it. Nonetheless, it does matter how the West behaves in terms of fueling injustice and encouraging recruitment. It is a treacherously delicate balancing act, dealing with an enemy that is utterly implacable, on the one hand while minimising the risks of playing into its propaganda hands through an indiscriminate response, on the other.

Which is why I said an aggressive offensive in agreement with other Arab states is the best way forward. It's not ideal by any means but it's the least worst option. Certainly better than some vague talk about negotiations.

No just asking batman for his opinion on the solution to this ****.

 

Clearly the west can't kill every Muslim (only a ****ing moron would suggest such a thing) but as pointed talking to the extremists isn't going to happen either.

 

The West will retaliate to this with violence which will create more extremists and so the whole circle will kick off again I'd love to know how people think this can be resolved.

The problem is that large parts of Iraq prefer to have IS in charge than the Shia government. Unless that is sorted out any military action will just be pointless bloodshed.

I don't think a full on ground war is the solution, any western troops on the ground will just inflame the situation and make targets of themselves. We need to somehow work with the local forces to wipe out IS, then get people talking. The problem is, thanks to Blair and Bush the whole area is a complete ****ing mess. The Peshmerga seem to be the most effective force but arming them properly won't go down well with Turkey. The Iraqi military is useless but you don't really want to start arming the shia militia. I doubt there is little hope of getting the Free Syria Army and Assad to come to any sort of agreement but they will probably need to to have chance of sorting IS out in Syria.

The ideal solution would be to have Iraq and Syria governed by heavy handed dictators, but the UK and US saw to that.

Whole Pompey crowd singing "If you all hate ISIS clap your hands" and "Stand up if you hate ISIS". That'll sort it all out, I'm sure this game is being streamed all over Syria.

so far it appears that two of the attackers came in to Europe via the EU Mediterranean ferry service.

so far it appears that two of the attackers came in to Europe via the EU Mediterranean ferry service.

This does not of course mean that every migrant or refugee is a terrorist, just a potential terrorist, but I see no need to go out of our way to help any of them come here, quite the opposite.

This does not of course mean that every migrant or refugee is a terrorist, just a potential terrorist, but I see no need to go out of our way to help any of them come here, quite the opposite.

Every migrant is a potential terrorist is about as true as every male is a potential rapist. Every person is a potential something.

Every migrant is a potential terrorist is about as true as every male is a potential rapist. Every person is a potential something.

Quite true. But a young male from Syria is a more likely threat than one from Aberystwyth.

No just asking batman for his opinion on the solution to this ****.

 

Clearly the west can't kill every Muslim (only a ****ing moron would suggest such a thing) but as pointed talking to the extremists isn't going to happen either.

 

The West will retaliate to this with violence which will create more extremists and so the whole circle will kick off again I'd love to know how people think this can be resolved.

If I was being cynical I'd say reduce our reliance on Middle Eastern oil and then we might stop meddling in that part of the world. It would then quite swiftly become a matter for the Arab world to sort out.......at least that's if it wasn't for those pesky Israelis!!

If I was being cynical I'd say reduce our reliance on Middle Eastern oil and then we might stop meddling in that part of the world. It would then quite swiftly become a matter for the Arab world to sort out.......at least that's if it wasn't for those pesky Israelis!!

Good idea. More fracking needed.

as Hypo said. All nations (islamic or otherwise) coming together to wipe these people from the face of the earth. That is not done by 'killing all muslims'. But an effort politically, financially and militarily.

 

I'd sort that out at home also. We obviously have breeding grounds in parts of london and other big cities. The security services know who they are but the moment they bring these people in from MI5 surveillance, you get people complaining their human rights are being destroyed.

 

Just skirting around the edges, trying to appease all groups is never ever going to work

 

again, that is a far cry from doing nothing OR killing all muslims in the world

Wasn't that what we tried in Afghanistan? years of coalition forces fighting it out with the Taliban the final result didn't actually change much. Western governments and voters do not, IMO, have the stomach for the bloody thirsty kind of war required to "wipe these people from the face of the earth" as soon as the body bags start coming into RAF Brize Norton in large numbers the British people will become unhappy same will happen in other western democracies.

You were the one asking Batman what the line in between do nothing and killing all Muslims was, suggesting you didn't think there was one. Glad you've cleared that up.

 

Batman post was a sarcastic to response to SOG anyway, pretty obvious when you look at it in context.

 

It will take a lot to break the cycle but it will involve more bloodshed before any kind of diplomatic conversations start to resolve anything.

 

The comparisons with Ireland and this idea we are all going to sit round the table and hug it out is facile garbage. Let's stop killing them and they'll stop killing us is utterly deluded appeasement. "What good did killing people" type thinking clearly missed how the major wars in history were actually won and peace achieved.

 

It's far more likely to end with the west significantly stepping up agression against this enemy or even better, encouraging the sovereign states hosting this false "Islamic State" to deal with the criminals in their own lands. These people will need to be brought to their knees, not negotiated with.

Nice theory but IS is thriving in those countries where governments are barely in charge outside their own capital cities, corrupt and barely able to keep the lights working let alone drive out religiously inspired fighters with their poor quality armed forces. Which brings us back to western armed forces doing the job which, as Afghanistan showed, Western government's don't have the political will to see through to it's bloody conclusion.

People seem to be talking past each other, as per.

 

IS doesn't understand costs and benefits as typically defined in international relations, except in a short-term, tactical sense. As such, it is virtually impossible to negotiate with it. Nonetheless, it does matter how the West behaves in terms of fueling injustice and encouraging recruitment. It is a treacherously delicate balancing act, dealing with an enemy that is utterly implacable, on the one hand while minimising the risks of playing into its propaganda hands through an indiscriminate response, on the other.

Far more eloquently put than I could manage.

Something happening in Paris again....people seen running from Place de la Republic and huge police presence......gunshots heard apparently.

Perhaps the terrorist on the run has reared his head.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice theory but IS is thriving in those countries where governments are barely in charge outside their own capital cities, corrupt and barely able to keep the lights working let alone drive out religiously inspired fighters with their poor quality armed forces. Which brings us back to western armed forces doing the job which, as Afghanistan showed, Western government's don't have the political will to see through to it's bloody conclusion.

Oh absolutely. Which puts the onus on Western democracies to try and intervene.

As Shurlock says above then the risk is that kind of intervention looks like the evil west trying to control everything and as you say it becomes more grief than its worth.

Cut to grieving mother in the midlands asking why are our soldiers being sent over there to die to sort out stuff that is nothing to do with us etc etc then Damon Albarn and Jeremy Corbyn give it all the "troops out now" routine and out they come, eventually.

That all leaves the everybody loses scenario of an unstable state because the job isn't complete but all the extremists blame the interfering infidels for everything anyway.

"Something must be done" but no, not that. Something else.

Oh absolutely. Which puts the onus on Western democracies to try and intervene.

As Shurlock says above then the risk is that kind of intervention looks like the evil west trying to control everything and as you say it becomes more grief than its worth.

 

Cut to grieving mother in the midlands asking why are our soldiers being sent over there to die to sort out stuff that is nothing to do with us etc etc then Damon Albarn and Jeremy Corbyn give it all the "troops out now" routine and out they come, eventually.

 

That all leaves the everybody loses scenario of an unstable state because the job isn't complete but all the extremists blame the interfering infidels for everything anyway.

 

"Something must be done" but no, not that. Something else.

Hasn't the West's intervention (and swapping its allegiances) caused a lot of the dreadful state in the area? I've just read this article from a couple of montsh ago but remarkably prescient now

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

Hasn't the West's intervention (and swapping its allegiances) caused a lot of the dreadful state in the area? I've just read this article from a couple of montsh ago but remarkably prescient now

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

Well, yeah, I was inferring that in the rest of the post. It is, however, unlikely that those ramshackle states are going to eradicate IS without any help from the UN/the West/etc and The West will just be blamed for its continued existence anyway.

Is it really the west's fault though? We have to take some of the blame for the situation we created in Iraq but apart from that I don't think we've done much wrong tbh.

Look at Afghanistan and what happened when we failed to intervene and let the Taliban get on with it. That lead to a completely rogue state, terrorist training camps and eventually 9/11. We haven't been to war in Egypt, Yemen, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Libya or Syria (you can't count the air strikes against the last 2) and yet thats where most of these ideologies are festering.

Is it really the west's fault though? We have to take some of the blame for the situation we created in Iraq but apart from that I don't think we've done much wrong tbh.

 

Look at Afghanistan and what happened when we failed to intervene and let the Taliban get on with it. That lead to a completely rogue state, terrorist training camps and eventually 9/11. We haven't been to war in Egypt, Yemen, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Libya or Syria (you can't count the air strikes against the last 2) and yet thats where most of these ideologies are festering.

We made a right old mess in Libya and that's where most of the arms come from. We half did the job and left a bit of a free for all.

Is it really the west's fault though? We have to take some of the blame for the situation we created in Iraq but apart from that I don't think we've done much wrong tbh.

 

Look at Afghanistan and what happened when we failed to intervene and let the Taliban get on with it. That lead to a completely rogue state, terrorist training camps and eventually 9/11. We haven't been to war in Egypt, Yemen, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Libya or Syria (you can't count the air strikes against the last 2) and yet thats where most of these ideologies are festering.

Is it really the west's fault though? We have to take some of the blame for the situation we created in Iraq but apart from that I don't think we've done much wrong tbh.

 

Look at Afghanistan and what happened when we failed to intervene and let the Taliban get on with it. That lead to a completely rogue state, terrorist training camps and eventually 9/11. We haven't been to war in Egypt, Yemen, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Libya or Syria (you can't count the air strikes against the last 2) and yet thats where most of these ideologies are festering.

You could do worse than watching this. If nothing else it will contextualise several components to the current 'conflict'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02gyz6b/adam-curtis-bitter-lake

Is it really the west's fault though? We have to take some of the blame for the situation we created in Iraq but apart from that I don't think we've done much wrong tbh.

 

Look at Afghanistan and what happened when we failed to intervene and let the Taliban get on with it. That lead to a completely rogue state, terrorist training camps and eventually 9/11. We haven't been to war in Egypt, Yemen, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Libya or Syria (you can't count the air strikes against the last 2) and yet thats where most of these ideologies are festering.

But didn't we support the Taliban when they were fighting the Russians?

But didn't we support the Taliban when they were fighting the Russians?

yeah but back then they were called Mujahideen and they were good guys fighting the evil commies hell even 007 and Rambo fought along side them.

yeah but back then they were called Mujahideen back then and they were good guys fighting the evil commies hell even 007 and Rambo fought along side them.

allegiances etc change over time.

who would have thought we would be standing side by side with france after centuries of war with them

If I was being cynical I'd say reduce our reliance on Middle Eastern oil and then we might stop meddling in that part of the world. It would then quite swiftly become a matter for the Arab world to sort out.......at least that's if it wasn't for those pesky Israelis!!

We could always just stop meddling in that part of the world and still buy their oil. Plenty of other countries manage it.

But didn't we support the Taliban when they were fighting the Russians?

Certainly not - and for one very good reason. The Taliban did not exist during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Mullah Omar's first assembly of forces (all fifty of them) took place in 1991 in Kandahar, two years after the Russians withdrew, and they didn't win their battle until 1994.

Don't fall for the line that the fault in Afghanistan's horrific mess belonged entirely with the Americans. The Americans were only a relatively small part of the picture.

The Russian invasion unleashed forces that tore the country apart, and most of them were the result of interference by three regional powers, Iran, India and Pakistan. That's aside from the Russians themselves, of course, who get conveniently forgotten, and Saudi Arabia, who were financing Bin Laden himself (as a Saudi intelligence employee originally) but, much more importantly, General Zia's drive the "Islamise" Pakistan - effectively transplant Wahhabi religious ideology into national institutions like education, the army and even the cricket team (!) etc.

The Pakistani counterintelligence service ISI, who basically ran rings around the Americans and continue, mostly, to do so, gave financial and materiel support to the Taliban, but that was well after the Russians had left. This support helped catapult the Taliban from a tiny, mostly irrelevant group into military conquerers of the country. The people they defeated were actually those who the Americans had given most financial support to, including the West-sympathising Ahmad Shah Masood, whom Bin Laden had murdered the day before 9/11.

Nothing is quite as it seems in South Asia and the Middle East, and it certainly doesn't conform to cliched meme of West = historic evil therefore we should do nothing in Syria.

https://www.rt.com/news/322211-france-airstrike-isis-raqqa/

also, dont know if it has been mentioned above but the bomb that went off outside the Stade De France was supposed to go off inside. The attacker was refused entry after being searched and went on to blow himself up there.

the ticket he did have had he got in was (apparently) right near the players tunnel

The French have just dropped a load of bombs on Raqqa...

so it begins...

We could always just stop meddling in that part of the world and still buy their oil. Plenty of other countries manage it.

We could indeed but I'm thinking of a time when oil becomes almost irrelevant - could be a long wait!

We could indeed but I'm thinking of a time when oil becomes almost irrelevant - could be a long wait!

Flamini has this sorted

https://www.rt.com/news/322211-france-airstrike-isis-raqqa/

 

also, dont know if it has been mentioned above but the bomb that went off outside the Stade De France was supposed to go off inside. The attacker was refused entry after being searched and went on to blow himself up there.

 

the ticket he did have had he got in was (apparently) right near the players tunnel

Scarily close.

And the threat close to home continues, how soon until one is missed?

http://news.sky.com/story/1588410/pm-we-stopped-seven-attacks-in-six-months

Whilst this culture still thrives in the UK;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3319941/Radical-panellists-event-demand-establishment-Islamic-State.html

Scarily close.

 

And the threat close to home continues, how soon until one is missed?

http://news.sky.com/story/1588410/pm-we-stopped-seven-attacks-in-six-months

 

Whilst this culture still thrives in the UK;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3319941/Radical-panellists-event-demand-establishment-Islamic-State.html

We MUST allow them the freedom of speech.

Even though this is basically overt sympathy for what happened in france. As long as they have their freedom of speech and movement. This will happen again and again

The security services are asking us for more powers, they want to be able to tackle these people more rigorously online.

as a nation, we just moan at these requests. Which is quite tragic really.

MOAN MOAN MOAN

Had this pop up on my twitter feed

@maydnusa France should start demolishing mosques tonight.

To which replies from similarly minded yee-haws are along the lines of 'Amen sister'

I've been blocked so I don't know what else the stupid cow has written.

The ignorance is palpable. I tried ( before I descended into abuse) to point out that this is precisely the reaction that they were going for and by writing this she was merely adding fuel to the fire. But apparently Im the one who just 'doesn't get it'

Stephen Fry rather beautifully summed it up with ' religion, ***** it, when will we ever learn'

https://www.rt.com/news/322211-france-airstrike-isis-raqqa/

 

also, dont know if it has been mentioned above but the bomb that went off outside the Stade De France was supposed to go off inside. The attacker was refused entry after being searched and went on to blow himself up there.

 

the ticket he did have had he got in was (apparently) right near the players tunnel

Worth noting that security guard who stopped him was allegedly a muslim, and has therefore potentially saved the lives of hundreds of 'westerners'? http://says.com/my/news/muslim-security-guard-zouheir-hero-paris-attacks

I think it's worth looking closer to home for any solution to the whole isis problem. There is still inter-communal tension and occasional violence in Belfast (in the UK) between different Christian denominations, and it wasn't long ago that the UK was home to it's own terrorist group in the IRA who claimed responsibility for several bomb attacks in the UK. It will likely take a long time and some effort at diplomacy to solve the issues at the heart of Middle Eastern stability.

No if they think they are at war with us then we treat them as such. All mosques should be told in no uncertain terms that anyone alleging themselves with any Islamic terror groups will be arrested, they will then be incarcerated in a prisoner of war camp until the 'war' is over or if they prefer sent to the Islamic country of their choice with no chance of return.

 

No refugees should be allowed in, all boats in the med shoUld be turned back. The people who run these countries should be supported if they request it, if not let them sort their own mess.

 

Lastly we should stop interfering in these countries, there's a reason they're run by dictators, we may not like what they do but at least they have control

We MUST allow them the freedom of speech.

Even though this is basically overt sympathy for what happened in france. As long as they have their freedom of speech and movement. This will happen again and again

 

The security services are asking us for more powers, they want to be able to tackle these people more rigorously online.

as a nation, we just moan at these requests. Which is quite tragic really.

MOAN MOAN MOAN

But there are limits on what we should allow.

 

Whilst this culture still thrives in the UK;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3319941/Radical-panellists-event-demand-establishment-Islamic-State.html

How on earth is this sort of thing allowed to go ahead!?

This will all only get worse. Let's keep allowing 1000s of refugees, sorry, economic migrants in though. Yet again there's people distancing these attacks from Islam. It's got everything to do with Islam. The quran says this sh*t in it. It's written in black and white. Islam is not compatible with the western world. People are putting their heads in the sand.

But there are limits on what we should allow.

could you imagine the hand-wringing from the likes of cumberbach and many who read the guardian if the government did that

allegiances etc change over time.

who would have thought we would be standing side by side with france after centuries of war with them

We have been standing should to shoulder with France for many many, years now, it didn't just happen over the weekend.

could you imagine the hand-wringing from the likes of cumberbach and many who read the guardian if the government did that

 

No generalisations there then?

This will all only get worse. Let's keep allowing 1000s of refugees, sorry, economic migrants in though. Yet again there's people distancing these attacks from Islam. It's got everything to do with Islam. The quran says this sh*t in it. It's written in black and white. Islam is not compatible with the western world. People are putting their heads in the sand.

What about the tens if not hundreds of thousands of Muslims who live perfectly peacefully in Western Europe?