Schools yes, but how do you deal with schools in areas with 99% Muslim, Jewish or White children? Start busing them to schools in the non muslim/jewish/white areas?

Pay our taxes and support the professional that are employed to deal with these threats. The portion that’s spent on our excellent intelligence gathering/security services are particularly good value for money in tackling terrorism and insurgency. T
Introduce ID cards
Don’t attempt to block attempts to gather more intelligence
(None of the above are going to be particularly popular but we’re dealing with an asymetric, underground threat which can only be tackled by using counter insurgency tactics and these depend on comprehensive intelligence).
Support the professionals who are paid to deal with these threats
Campaign for an end to faith schools in the UK
Encourage open discussion and understanding of the causes of the threat
Put MPs on the spot and try ensure they don’t grandstand or ignore professional advice (as they did in 2003)

I’m suggesting the richer our understand of these people and their motivations the more likely it is we’ll be able to defeat them. Do you disagree with that statement? Do you think that all we need to know is that they are inspired by the Koran? If so, what do we do with that information?

On the practicalities, what do you suggest we do about this genocidal death cult? What action are you taking apart from talking and writing about it? Personally, not being a pacifist by any definition, I’d like to see them all dead but as that’s not a practical proposition, what do you have in mind? We can maybe hope for some long term action from within the Muslim community but that’s not going to help us tackle the immediate threat. I have serious doubts about Cameron’s plans but only because they seem incoherent – without determined, concentrated action on the ground bombing will have little effect. My guess is that the rebels in Cameron’s own party (without whom he wouldn’t have to worry how Labour or other MPs vote) feel the same way.

My feeling is that you have latched very firmly onto the “regressive left” label and are now seeing regressive lefties under every rock.

Not everyone who asks questions about motives – which absolutely can’t be as one dimensional as you seem to be suggesting – is an apologist. I disdain the apologists as much as you do (and, for what it’s worth, thought Obama’s statements were incredibly unhelpful, to put it mildly) but that doesn’t get us very far, does it?

“If anyone is arguing that, as Stephen suggested, what we learned about Abaaoud “proves he was not a Muslim apparently, or at the least, not a sincere one” it’s certainly not me. (Stephen’s statement sounds like straw man, but that’s by the by”

The article wasn’t about you, obviously. And it’s not a ‘strawman’. If you want me to point you to the endless apologia of those claiming that these people were not ‘real/true/sincere Muslims’ based on these details, I will. What do you think was the point of reporting on their drinking, if not to call their Islamic credentials into question? Why else would that detail be worthy of reporting? Do we do this with every criminal?

“The question to my mind is “So what?”. What does this mindset (because that’s all it is – a set of beliefs based in external reality) tell us about these people and how can it help us to defeat them?”

It tells us that some people can’t be reasoned with. They don’t want anything we can reasonably offer – and for the protection of ourselves, and others, they need to be eliminated. That’s how you defeat them. This is the world we live in.

“Why have they chosen to believe it? Why do there appear to be at least a few chinks in their mental armor and what do they tell us? What does it mean to believe things? How can these beliefs be changed? Are there some amongst them who claim these beliefs in order to enable them to murder, rape, torture and maim (in much the same way that there must be some Catholic priests who took their vows because it provided them opportunities to abuse children)? None of the answers to these questions are straightforward. And if we can’t answer them we’re in trouble”

Whilst you’re waxing philosophical on the trivialities of the situation and pretending it’s somehow useful, there’s a huge problem here and now that requires our immediate attention: What do we do about this genocidal death cult? Sitting around and talking about it, whilst being against military action looks a lot like doing precisely nothing to me.

“I’ve got nothing more to say on this. Have a good war”

To be fair Andrew, I’m not sure you ever had anything to say on this. No-one’s calling for a war, but pacifism here simply allows bad people to murder, rape and torture as much as they like – no amount of your tautology will change that fact.

Except that it doesn’t, of course, because none of it is true. They’ve chosen, for whatever reasons, to believe in these fictions. It’s the ‘whatever reasons’ that are important and there are bound to be a variety of reasons. Obviously.

If anyone is arguing that, as Stephen suggested, what we learned about Abaaoud “proves he was not a Muslim apparently, or at the least, not a sincere one” it’s certainly not me. (Stephen’s statement sounds like straw man, but that’s by the by. There is no doubt in my mind that these individuals are Muslims (which thankfully, proves that I’m not a member of Stephen’s “regressive left”!) or that their minds have accepted that the Koran tells them to which they murder, rape, torture and maim.

The question to my mind is “So what?”. What does this mindset (because that’s all it is – a set of beliefs based in external reality) tell us about these people and how can it help us to defeat them? Why have they chosen to believe it? Why do there appear to be at least a few chinks in their mental armor and what do they tell us? What does it mean to believe things? How can these beliefs be changed? Are there some amongst them who claim these beliefs in order to enable them to murder, rape, torture and maim (in much the same way that there must be some Catholic priests who took their vows because it provided them opportunities to abuse children)? None of the answers to these questions are straightforward. And if we can’t answer them we’re in trouble.

I’ve got nothing more to say on this. Have a good war.

The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The slain are of three types: (the first is) a believing man who fought with his life and his wealth for the sake of Allaah, and when he met the enemy he fought them until he was killed. That is the proud martyr who resides in the tent of Allaah beneath His Throne; the Prophets are no better than him except by virtue of their being Prophets. (The second is) a believing man who committed some sins, but he fought with his life and his wealth for the sake of Allaah, and when he met the enemy he fought until he was killed. His sins are erased, for the sword erases sins, and he will be admitted through whichever of the gates of Paradise he wishes, for it has eight gates, and Hell has seven gates, and some of them are better than others. (The third is) a hypocrite who strove with his life and his wealth, and when he met the enemy he fought for the sake of Allaah and was killed. He will be in Hell, for the sword does not erase hypocrisy.”

Yeah, but:-

“And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah”

So, just saying, aside from the fags and booze dilemma, why didn’t the guys roll up into Paris on donkeys?