Sockerkaka: You make a very complex problem way too simple. These terrorist attacks are not the result of the immigrant crisis in europe but an escalating conflict, that has been going on for many years, between the west and anti-western ideologies. Innocent people are caught in the crossfire of this conflict, those who emigrate from the middle east and europeans alike, and by limiting the solution of the conflict to tighter border controls you miss the root of the problem: radicalization.
011284mm: I agree I only understand a small amount of this problem, as no one could understand the entire thing. Yet I really think there is a subtle difference in how these are worded and how these play out.
The "refugee" problem is a problem because most of those coming are not fleeing persecution so they are not real refugees, they are migrants. Migrants migrate for a reason. Now, because there are no checks being carried out on those entering through this open border for everyone but the Europeans, we have no idea who is migrating. Nor what types of unwanted people are coming.
We also need to understand that many of these people have greatly differing views to those of the countries they are now entering. For one, we now have more people in Germany who agree with Shia Law and that they can just ignore the law of any land if the law is not Islam, maybe it will be common over there like it is here in the UK within a year or so. We have areas in the UK where there are patrols of muslims carrying out their little Shia Law patrols like the police would otherwise.
Your idea that radicalization is the problem, is a problem. Were the IRA radacalised, or angry to the point they were willing to fight? Were the ETA radical fighters or just people willing to fight for their cause?
"Radicalization" is just people trying to push the blame from those who carry out the attacks onto some pinnacle of power.
Now, you can say there are people influencing them, but they carry this out because they do believe, and the belief stems from within. Else you might as well render anyone who ever goes out and kills someone as "radacalised" by something. Yes, I know the media really enjoys saying that people cannot think for themselves.
No one held a gun to their heads, they held guns to other people. Not radical, just people willing to fight for their believed cause.
France has been dealing with the problem of non-interacting "minorities" for two decades or more. Some of those people believe that they live in the land of heathens, they do not require radaclising, they just require an excuse. Plenty of those going about these days.
Just my 2c though.
The problem isn’t that most aren’t real refugees, we know that they are and we know why they’re here, they’re arriving from the conflict in Syria and Iraq as well as from political oppression and war in central Africa. No one spends thousands of dollars to get the chance to risk their own and their families lives on tiny boats on the mediterranean, or walk across Europe, without a life threatening situation at home. The refugee problem is a problem because Europe wasn’t prepared for the amount of people seeking shelter, agreements such as the Dublin Regulation weren’t meant to handle these numbers of people, this is why we label it a problem.
Europe have the economical means though to give these people places to stay and in the long run it will benefit economical growth in the EU, but political will is missing. Those who arrive aren’t that different from us, they are doctors, engineers, teachers, farmers etc. We need them, refugees or migrants, to sustain the living standards we have today with dwindling birth rates and increasingly older population.
Sharia Law is not present anywhere in Europe unless people practice it in their own homes. Germany, UK or any other state in Europe have the power, through police or military, to uphold law and control in it’s own territory, with violence if necessary.
Radicalization doesn’t have anything to do with pushing away the blame for these actions but to understand them, because a person who haven’t gone through a radicalization process will not be a violent extremist. Extreme ideas about society are central when talking about radicalization, without these a person can’t be defined as radical. A terrorist is radical, he have adopted extreme ideas about how society should be and through violent means he tries to change it. These ideas may arise by reading extremist websites on his bedroom PC or in an IS-training facility, but we need to figure out why some people who are attracted to these ideas turns violent, rightwing, leftwing or religious, and what we can do to stop that.
Many famous persons through history can be labeled as radical though, Voltaire, Marx etc. Someone who have gone through a radicalization process do not have to be violent, and anyone who is violent do not have to be a radical.
It's saturday and late so I hope this got out of my head in a somewhat understandable form.