In the case of the Orlando massacre, that is indeed a task for pathologists. The causes and consequences of religious fanaticism is another matter. — Wayfarer

I don't think you know what pathologists do.

No one who knows the motivations behind the Orlando shooter's acts could possibly dismiss the religious factor unless they were ideologically motivated to do so. Yes, Omar Mateen was a deranged individual, but his religion is part of what deranged him. He didn't just pick a target at random and attack it: he picked a very specific target (i.e. a nightclub frequented by homosexuals, a frequent target of Islamist violence) and drove hours to attack it. He had previously expressed sympathy for Islamist terrorist organizations, and learned Islamic-driven hatred at the knee of his father.

ABSTRACT: Religiously inspired terrorism can be understood as a response to a fundamental problem of secular modernity: the ‘‘God-shaped hole’’ that motivates it. The key issue is identity, and the anxiety that lack of secure identity arouses. Secular values undermine the ontological identity that religion traditionally provided. By devaluing such religious solutions to the ungroundedness of our constructed sense of self, the modern/ postmodern world aggravates the sense of lack that it cannot understand and with which it is unable to cope. This may seem too abstract, but the problems created are all too real. This essay discusses these problems and adumbrates a Buddhist solution. — Wayfarer

I am curious: what would be a Buddhist solution to the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar currently being carried out by Buddhists, while that great beacon of democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi, basically does nothing? Physician, heal thyself!

I think the supposition that the Orlando shooter himself was gay or bisexual and frequented gay dating sites was later debunked, IIRC — Arkady

As far as I know no gay dating app accounts were ever discovered, but there is a boat load of eyewitness testimony suggesting he frequented the night club he attacked. How was all that debunked? Severe homophobia seems the primary motivator of the attack, regardless of whether or not self-hatred was a factor.

As far as I know no gay dating app accounts were ever discovered, but there is a boat load of eyewitness testimony suggesting he frequented the night club he attacked. How was all that debunked? Severe homophobia seems the primary motivator of the attack, regardless of whether or not self-hatred was a factor. — VagabondSpectre

In the immediate wake of the shooting, there were reports that Mateen had used gay dating apps such as Grinder (Grindr?). These reports, as you say, came to nought. There were other rumors swirling about him, as well. I thought I may have been missing something, as I've not followed the most recent developments into the Mateen investigation (to the extent that said investigation is still ongoing), so I checked his Wiki page. It looks like there are conflicting reports about him attending that nightclub which he eventually attacked, with some emphatically saying "yea," and others also emphatically saying "nae."

Given the fallibility of human memory, I am inclined to treat reports of people having seen him there skeptically, absent security camera footage or credit cards statements from the club, or something to that effect. I'm not ruling out the possibility that he was a closeted, self-hating homosexual, but I see nothing definitive to that end.

Now, of course, a person's Wiki page is not a comprehensive compendium of a person's life history, so there may yet be other sources of which I'm unaware; I remain open to that possibility. I am also aware that some animus towards homosexuals is rooted in repressed homosexuality, but it doesn't follow that all such hatred is so rooted.

I don't know why it happens but it's violent and crazy. I work in a hospitals so I see the results of it from time to time.

Given the ample testimony that was floating around (including from the shooters wife) I'm less skeptical, but apparently his ex-wife has just pleaded not guilty to charges of aiding and abetting and obstruction of justice, so there's a good chance any hard evidence will emerge in court.

The reason why I brought up the Orlando night club attack specifically was because it seems like an example of terrorism more purely motivated by religious and cultural hatred than most others (as opposed to contemporary geopolitical sympathy). The on-going murder of gays in the Muslim world isn't associated with "holy war" or "jihad", it's associated with the cultural and religiously reinforced hatred of homosexuals (similar to hatred for apostates in appearance) and the "policing" (purging) of one's own community/family. It bears heavy similarity with the west's own recent history of persecuting gays.

The Orlando terrorist carried out an attack against the gay community specifically, not "the west" per se. The gay community of the west isn't the sworn enemy that ISIS thinks it's fighting against, it's the entirety of the west. Why would he choose to target only the gay community unless hatred toward it was chief among his motivations? In the eyes of the murderers who continue to torture lynch and execute gays abroad, this wouldn't even be considered a "terror attack", it's something they would do to their own family members. Not so long ago in the west we too were culturally barbaric enough to engage in the same actions.

As a aide note "culture" and "religion" (and as they intertwine) should not be thought of as safe from criticism and condemnation in any kind of cultural relativist sense. My position in this thread is not to broadly absolve Islamic doctrine and practice of their moral failings, it is rather to point out that the same moral failures have and still exist in Christian doctrine and practice (along with many other religions), and so our redress of "Islam" (broadly) should be tempered with the understanding that it can and should also apply to Christianity.

Foolish anti-theists think they can actually eliminate a religion, not realizing that as they more broadly attack the religion as a whole the more they generate widespread sympathy for it. You cannot eliminate sympathy by (rational) force, it has to die out on it's own. The willingness to obey and enforce a specific religious tenet is one of the ways in which changing culture can dictate the shape that religion takes (as modern western Christianity has somewhat shown). Unless we're prepared to defenestrate hundreds of thousands of Christian clergy for their doctrines, many people need to come to grips with the idea that barbaric elements within Islamic culture and practice can, will, and must change, much as the Christian west has done. Opposing homophobia and the persecution of gays on progressive moral grounds is one way to influence cultural and religious change rather than stimulating only entrenched opposition by condemning the entirety of Islamic culture and religion as one broad and singular package.

Foolish anti-theists think they can actually eliminate a religion, not realizing that as they more broadly attack the religion as a whole the more they generate widespread sympathy for it. — VagabondSpectre

I dunno about this in all cases. I see a lot of (sometimes well deserved) hassling of Christians and Jews which hasn't really brought about any sort of counter-sympathy, only more hate and faulty generalizations.

I think it depends on the nature of the hassling. Some of it is warranted, some of it not.

When a staunch anti-theist like Christopher Hitchens criticizes religion for it's inherent irrationality and it's contributions to suffering in the world, he doesn't also go on to say something like "There ought to be a law against religion". If he did then people would have said he was simply bigoted against religion. Perhaps some of what he said amounted to hate generating faulty generalization, but unlike some of the rhetoric floating around in contemporary internet culture, at least his position isn't also a trajectory toward outright repression of religion.

We forget, or we weren't born yet, that there was more terrorist activity in Europe in the 1970s than in Europe in the present decade. — Bitter Crank

Yet then there was the Cold War, that was the focus of attention. For example the vast number of hijackings didn't make airline security to increase as now.

Now terrorism is the main focus of security policy in basically every country. All wars are basically fought with countering terrorism being the justification for them. And this is because there isn't such a Cold War as when there was a Soviet Union in the 1970's and 1980's. People were afraid of WW3 back then, and for a logical reason. A possible nuclear change, which actually came close a couple of times, would be many times more dangerous than all acts of terrorism combined.

The focus actually started to change in the 1990's. Then the West started to change it's direction to counter "new threats", in which terrorism was one of the leading threats that deserved attention and basically gave a justification for the Cold War security apparatus to exist. This happened before 2001, but naturally 9/11 gave the real push and hence now we have put countering terrorism on the pedestal.

But the sheer magnitude of the loss of life of 30,000 people — WhiskeyWhiskers

The article made it clear to me that this statistic is itself likely to be baseless fear-mongering that "manipulates our emotions and sells papers/gets clicks." So you ought to take a look at why you're taken in by a story like that but sneer at stories about terrorism.

Do you agree? I don't see how you couldn't without at the same time admitting your objectivity is compromised. — WhiskeyWhiskers

No, because those statistics are probably bullshit. Again, the article, if you chose to read it, helpfully presents both sides and the "government murders 30k" narrative was pretty well deflated as hyperbolic nonsense.

especially if they're a minority and you're a conservative, and if the media keeps the enemy constantly in mind — WhiskeyWhiskers

Wow, an unnecessary and rank smear against conservatives.

and many other tragedies that Western governments continue to neglect simply because they don't make as exciting news copy as terrorism does — andrewk

"So many tragedies?" Like what? I'm sure they exist, but let's think here. These "Western countries" are the freest, safest, most prosperous at present and in the history of the planet. Compared to some imaginary utopia we could think of, naturally, they fall short and are far from perfect. That being said, I have already explained why terrorism merits more attention in solving, so I don't know what else to say to you.

Why is there no hysteria over road deaths, inadequate-health-system-related deaths, or poverty-related deaths, all of which dwarf terrorism-related deaths? — andrewk

I gave you the reason.

You know it's not simple. If it were simple it would have been done. — andrewk

But solving "road deaths, inadequate-health-system-related deaths, or poverty-related deaths," is simple, right? Just go tell your elected representative, "hey, could you stop murdering 30k people a year, kthxbye," and I'm sure he'll think, "gee, he may have a point, let's not murder 30k people, fellow representatives!" And voila, problem solved.

In the case of ISIS, they are a pathetic force of about 5000 guys who came to power because the West chose not to leave any peacekeeping forces in Iraq, which historically have always been necessary to help countries transition from dictatorships to functioning democracies. One bomb, the MOAB, just recently destroyed 2% of their total forces. It would be a cakewalk taking them out. We don't, not because it would be difficult, but because the West is interested in realpoliticking.

The article made it clear to me that this statistic is itself likely to be baseless fear-mongering that "manipulates our emotions and sells papers/gets clicks." So you ought to take a look at why you're taken in by a story like that but sneer at stories about terrorism. — Thorongil

No, because those statistics are probably bullshit. Again, the article, if you chose to read it, helpfully presents both sides and the "government murders 30k" narrative was pretty well deflated as hyperbolic nonsense. — Thorongil

Err, the statistics are most certainly not "baseless fear-mongering". Unless you think the Office of National Statistics are into that sort of thing (they are "the UK’s largest independent producer of official statistics and its recognised national statistical institute" and the government cites them regularly on their own website). No one except you is disputing the numbers. You might want to dispute the causes of those numbers, but I apologise for siding with the opinion of researchers, who do this stuff for a living, over yourself and the Conservative government who has a vested interest in denying any responsibility for the numbers (they've literally blamed every other group except themselves for the NHS crisis, so this most recent denial is very predictable and very telling). As the article says, "they examined other possible explanations for the deaths, including data inaccuracies, whether there had been a major epidemic or “environmental shocks” such as wars or natural disasters." If, after your evidently thorough analysis of their methodology and expertise in their field, you have some additional insight into why this research is bullshit, the authors, the peer-reviewers, the media, the government, the general public, and myself would like to hear it.

All that aside, the validity of this particular research is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. I don't need that study to be correct to point out that there are more dangerous things in society than terrorism that we don't equally proportion our attitudes to, or direct our attention or public funding in massive disproportion towards. Quibbling over the study is all beside the point. (Also, I'd appreciate it if you didn't quote my narrative as "government murders 30k". It shows not only that you don't understand my argument (or are at best taking the least charitable interpretation of it, so thanks), but also that you don't know how quotation marks work.)

With regards to the Douglas Murray video: he says that terrorism-death statistics are misleading because they conveniently start counting, for example, the day after 9/11. At no point did I cite statistics that conveniently began 24 hours after 9/11. Here's a chart showing the number of deaths in western Europe and the US going all the way back to 1970 (Source). There are many interesting points in this graph, not least the presence of the Oklahoma city bombing. Let's have the article spell my argument out for you in case you still aren't getting it:

"Even in 2001, the likelihood of an American in the United States being killed in a terrorist attack was less than one in 100,000; in the decade up to 2013 that fell to one in 56m. The chance of being the victim in 2013 of an ordinary homicide in the United States was one in 20,000. Barack Obama was correct when he said earlier this year that the danger of drowning in a bathtub is greater than that of being killed by terrorists. Baths are a one-in-a-million risk. Even if the terrorism deaths in San Bernardino and Orlando were doubled to give an annual death toll, the risk would still be about one in 2.5m." (This except is from this version of the article, which is more concise than the other and subtitled "Putting the recent horrors in perspective". The same excerpt has been slightly reworded in the longer one)

As for Murray's other point; "If there were a movement deliberately making dangerous toasters, or deliberately mis-wiring lawn mowers to make sure they kill their owners, I'd want to know about it. And so would you. And that's what we're dealing with; movements that actively want to do this so of course there's a disproportionate emphasis on that, because that's what matters."

These points aren't an argument against anything I've said, it's just a restatement of your position, which I've argued against since as lacking objectivity. If anything, my argument is a direct counter to both yours and DM's claims, and I could similarly accuse DM of letting the fear of terrorism get the better of him.

Looking at the numbers, I'm actually beginning to understand even less why we should be more concerned about terrorist intentions and the resulting deaths over non-terrorist related deaths. Can you explain what makes intentions matter more than the actual relative ineffectiveness of terrorism when compared with other, more dangerous causes of death that we aren't even comparably concerned about in our day to day lives? Somehow, you think intentions make up the several-dozen thousand-fold difference and then some. How? What is it about it being deliberate that matters so much? Surely all deaths of normal citizens are equally bad.

In 2001, when compared to 2013, you were more than 5 times more likely to die from homicide than a terrorist attack (I couldn't find the regular homicide rate for 2001). So another question is, why is the latter a bigger problem than the former, even though homicides are just as intentional as terrorist murders?

I'd also like to hear which side of the gun ownership/2nd amendment debate you fall on, just in case you're secretly a massive hypocrite across these two issues.

Here's some more evidence in case you wish to trot out Douglas Murray again to make your case for you: "Foreign-born terrorists who entered the country, either as immigrants or tourists, were responsible for 88 percent (or 3,024) of the 3,432 murders caused by terrorists on U.S. soil from 1975 through the end of 2015." (Source).

A choice quote: "Including those murdered in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), the chance of an American perishing in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil that was committed by a foreigner over the 41-year period studied here is 1 in 3.6 million per year. The hazard posed by foreigners who entered on different visa categories varies considerably. For instance, the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year while the chance of being murdered in an attack committed by an illegal immigrant is an astronomical 1 in 10.9 billion per year. By contrast, the chance of being murdered by a tourist on a B visa, the most common tourist visa, is 1 in 3.9 million per year."

Wow, an unnecessary and rank smear against conservatives. — Thorongil

If you took that as a smear, that says more about how you view conservatives than about how I do. I don't derive any moral judgement from that. It's a fairly well known fact that conservative minds have a more in-group/out-group mentality (this is why nationalism and tribalism occur more on the right, and the lefts 'openness to experience' renders them less sceptical of out-group individuals). That, coupled with a high degree of risk-aversion (due to a desire for stability, which can often be at the expense of those at the bottom if tradition is threatened) and a perceived high-risk threat coming from predominantly foreign, or at least minority, enemy (terrorists), results in a degree of unwarranted hysteria if you don't look at, or choose to ignore, the numbers. The medias role in whipping up hysteria shouldn't need to be spelled out.

There is literally article after article after article (I've come across even more while researching for this post) of cool-headed risk-analysis that implores people to regain some perspective when thinking about the risk of terrorism to them and their families. But you choose to overlook all that just because terrorists have bad intentions?

50 people dead from a terrorist attack is 'morally worse' than 50 people dead from a disease. But it doesn't follow, for example, that the US should spend 250,000 times more per death on terrorism than strokes ($500,000,000 vs $2000 each). Nor does it follow than it's a bigger threat to us. Nor does it follow that it's worse for society overall in a non-moral sense. — WhiskeyWhiskers

As The Onion reported recently, the death rate in America remains at the all-time high of 100%. All 320 million of us are going to die, and 1/3 of the deaths will be from strokes. So, at $2000 per stroke, we will be spending $200 billion. Feel better about the stroke budget? It's probably higher for cancer (1/3 of the deaths, roughly) and heart disease (another third down the drain).

Feel better?

Yes, a rational budget of alarm and financial expenditure would direct more money toward cancer, auto safety, strokes, heart disease, suicide prevention, firearm control, healthy behaviors, and so on. But you may be vaguely aware that humans make many important decisions on the basis of raw emotion rather than rational deliberation.

Raw emotion was drained out of traffic accidents a long time ago. (MY auto accident was horrible; yours was just background noise.) As one ages, more and more people one knows drop dead from cancer, heart disease, and stroke. Maybe it's sad (but then again, not all that sad) but it isn't shocking. It happens too often. And we have to die of something.

Terrorism is tuned to an unavoidably noticeable pitch. It happens rarely enough that it doesn't become background noise.

No one except you is disputing the numbers — WhiskeyWhiskers

In and of themselves? No, I was talking about the scare-mongering narrative you tried peddling. But I think you knew that are now being pedantic.

Can you explain what makes intentions matter more than the actual relative ineffectiveness of terrorism when compared with other, more dangerous causes of death that we aren't even comparably concerned about in our day to day lives? — WhiskeyWhiskers

I already did. If you don't nip terrorism in the bud, then you are taking a massive risk, for if terrorists do acquire the means to better achieve their ends, they will not hesitate to make use of them.

Surely all deaths of normal citizens are equally bad. — WhiskeyWhiskers

No, if I die in a mudslide, do we hold the mud morally responsible? Of course not. Deliberately murdering someone is worse than mere fatal, unintended accidents for the reason that it is immoral, unlike the latter.

So another question is, why is the latter a bigger problem than the former, even though homicides are just as intentional as terrorist murders? — WhiskeyWhiskers

The difference between homicide and terrorism is that in the former case, more often than not the perpetrator only intends to kill a single person who is already known to him or her: a drug deal goes bad and one side murders the other, a husband finds out his wife has cheated on him and kills her in a rage, etc. Islamic terrorists, on he other hand, are hellbent on creating a worldwide theocratic state and will destroy anyone and anything that stands in their way. The drug dealer and spurned lover don't know or care about you, but the terrorist does. You are their target. The difference could not be more stark.

I'd also like to hear which side of the gun ownership/2nd amendment debate you fall on, just in case you're secretly a massive hypocrite across these two issues. — WhiskeyWhiskers

What do you mean by "side?" I wish to uphold the US Constitution, which includes the second amendment.

Here's some more evidence — WhiskeyWhiskers

You mean "numbers," I already said I'm not going to play the numbers game.

If you took that as a smear, that says more about how you view conservatives than about how I do — WhiskeyWhiskers

Oh don't kid yourself. It was an outright smear and you know it.

It's a fairly well known fact that conservative minds have a more in-group/out-group mentality (this is why nationalism and tribalism occur more on the right, and the lefts 'openness to experience' renders them less sceptical of out-group individuals) — WhiskeyWhiskers

The extremes on both left and right can display nationalism and tribalism. Currently, the left's identity politics is far more tribal than traditional conservatism. Conservatives care mostly about values, not the people who hold them. Naturally, when they defend things like "Western values," "British values" and so on this gets construed as being racial, but it's not. The alt-right is tribal, but they're not the sole voice on the right and are in fact taking a page out of the leftist identitarian's playbook.

cool-headed risk-analysis that implores people to regain some perspective when thinking about the risk of terrorism to them and their families. But you choose to overlook all that just because terrorists have bad intentions? — WhiskeyWhiskers

What exactly do you take to be my position? I sense you have been operating under a straw man. I am not saying that some ISIS fighter poses the same statistical risk as innumerable other ways in which one could die. But I am saying he poses more of an existential and civilizational risk than a great many other things. You may not care about preserving civilization, but I do.

But solving "road deaths, inadequate-health-system-related deaths, or poverty-related deaths," is simple, right? — Thorongil

If we spent on those problems a quarter of the money and removal of personal freedom involved in the 'war against terror' we would reduce the annual death toll by a large multiple of the annual death toll in Western countries from terrorist acts.

eg road deaths - lower speed limits, mandate collision avoidance systems in all cars, introduce vulnerable road user laws like in Europe, require driver re-licensing at least triennially, make activities like mobile phone use while driving result in immediate loss of licence.

But no, we couldn't do that could we, because being allowed to drive your own car however you want is the American dream.

I gave you the reason. — Thorongil

My recollection is that you made some statement purported to be a reason, it was challenged and shown to be no reason at all, and you didn't even attempt rebut that challenge. It was too many pages ago to find, but if you want to do that and try to recycle it, go for it.

PS Some stats about road deaths, from here.
The US has 34,064 road deaths per annum (What's the US annual death toll from terrorism again?)
There are various measures of the rate, taking into account the population size. In all of them the US rate is far more than in other Western countries. How many of those 34,064 deaths could be saved by even a minor tightening of US laws, which are much more lax than in other Western countries?
The most favourable measure to the US is deaths per billion km travelled. But comparing that to two other Western countries that have large distances to travel - Canada and Australia - we see the rate is US 7.1 Canada 6.2 Australia 5.2. Australia has far tougher road laws than the US, although weaker than in Europe. If the US changed its laws to get its death rate down to that of Australia, it would save 9,115 lives per year. That's more than four and a half 9/11s.

lower speed limits, mandate collision avoidance systems in all cars, introduce vulnerable road user laws like in Europe, require driver re-licensing at least triennially, make activities like mobile phone use while driving result in immediate loss of licence. — andrewk

Excepting the avoidance systems, which I would let the private sector handle, none of these require much money, and they sound like good ideas to me. Thus, we don't have to stop fighting terrorists.

But no, we couldn't do that could we, because being allowed to drive your own car however you want is the American dream. — andrewk

If this is supposed to insinuate that I'm opposed to new car technology, then I can tell you I'm not. I don't give much of a crap about cars. The ripping up of all the inner city trolley systems was a horrible mistake, in my opinion.

My recollection is that you made some statement purported to be a reason, it was challenged and shown to be no reason at all, and you didn't even attempt rebut that challenge. It was too many pages ago to find, but if you want to do that and try to recycle it, go for it. — andrewk

Read what I've said. It's not hard.

Read what I've said. It's not hard. — Thorongil

Read the rebuttals from myself and WhiskeyWhiskers. That's not hard either.

I've responded to them.

If you did, I didn't see it. If you think it was so great, reproduce it here. Otherwise all you have is 'I've got a really great argument against this, which I'm not going to show you'.

Good god man.

Why is there no hysteria over road deaths, inadequate-health-system-related deaths, or poverty-related deaths, all of which dwarf terrorism-related deaths? — andrewk

For the millionth time, the major difference between fatalities due to terrorism and those due to accidents is the motive involved, or lack thereof. No one is for road deaths, inadequate-health-system-related deaths, or poverty-related deaths. There may be disagreements over how to handle these problems, but there isn't any grand conspiracy by the government to deliberately cause these deaths. Terrorists, on the other hand, are in favor of murder. They explicitly desire your death as well as your culture and civilization's ruin. That's the difference.

I don't think that saying that deaths on account of illnesses and road accidents, and deaths on account of terrorism, is a fair reflection of the kind of problem that terrorism represents. One major point about deaths caused by terrorism, is that those deaths are the consequence of deliberate intent to kill, which neither road deaths nor natural deaths are. The issue in this thread is the extent to which a particular cultural milieu is a causal factor in the proliferation of terrorism.

I agree that the US, in particular, has massively over-reacted to the actual threat of terrorism, and furthermore that the US attitude towards guns, and the NRA, pose a far higher risk of actual violent death, than does Islamic terrorism, to individuals on US soil.

But none of that means that Islamic terrorism is not a threat to peace and safety everywhere it appears.

I don't think that saying that deaths on account of illnesses and road accidents, and deaths on account of terrorism, is a fair reflection of the kind of problem that terrorism represents. One major point about deaths caused by terrorism, is that those deaths are the consequence of deliberate intent to kill, which neither road deaths nor natural deaths are. — Wayfarer

Hallelujah, someone gets it.

I agree that the US, in particular, has massively over-reacted to the actual threat of terrorism, and furthermore that the US attitude towards guns, and the NRA, pose a far higher risk of actual violent death, than does Islamic terrorism, on US soil. But none of that means that Islamic terrorism is not a threat to peace and safety everywhere it appears. — Wayfarer

I completely disagree with the gun comments but your last point is well said.

Interesting how the conservative meme always seems to travel as a complete kit. You have to buy the whole thing.

We've already covered this. That is a difference. But it doesn't provide any support for your assertion that Western governments are not doing enough to fight terrorism. Public policy, in this area, is about minimising harm. The intent behind the cause of harm is only relevant insofar as it feeds through to the amount of harm caused.

If you want to argue that more money and loss of freedom should be committed to anti-terrorist activities than at present, you need to demonstrate the public policy benefit of that, and why it would reduce harm more than spending the same amount on other more pressing issues like road deaths, public health or gun control.

What are you talking about? I thought we already went over how there are many different kinds of conservative. I'm one kind. There are others with whom I would vehemently disagree.

Nobody who defends the current state of gun ownership in the USA has credibility on questions of violence, in my book. During 2015, the total number of gun deaths on US soil finally outnumbered all US deaths in violent conflict, including the Civil War, since the US was founded. 'first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.'

If you want to argue that more money and loss of freedom — andrewk

How absurd. No, andrew, I'm not in favor of wasting money or the curtailment of freedom.

By "not doing enough" I mean that Western governments have broken their own informal promises as well as legal obligations to militarily intervene in the event of genocide, the use of WMDs, and/or the crossing of red lines, all three of which have now occurred.

Nobody who defends the current state of gun ownership in the USA has the slightest scintilla of credibility on any questions of violence, in my book. — Wayfarer

Yeah, and I imagine most gun owners don't defend said state either.

The view that I expressed earlier in this thread, is that 'liberalism' (in the broad sense, not in the sense of US domestic politics) fails to appreciated the tension (not to say conflict) between its fundamental premisses, and those of Islam as a political and religious movement. Accordingly, it indiscriminately extends the fundamental democratic freedoms to Islam, without however recognizing that these same freedoms are not recognized within Islam itself. But then to say that, is to be categorised as 'Islamophobic' by well-intentioned but uninformed human rights advocates - a rhetoric which is then manipulated by various advocacy groups to their own ends (as noted in this OP, by a Muslim columnist.) That's about all I want to say in this context.