Slightly different circumstances. Frankly, I am opposed to banning speech and ideas. But let's take that notion a step further. The US government installed the Shah of Iran in power and maintained that regime until a revolution tossed him out. Iraq was pretty much a creation of Britain. A good hunk of the Muslim world was a colony of western powers up through the middle of the last century. We armed the people in Afghanistan to fight the Russians and then just walked away afterwards, leaving a political vacuum. There is a lot of residual animosity from all of that. Do you also suggest we adopt sack-cloth and ashes for our hand in the current situation?
Fair enough.
There is an obvious difference - Germany is a sovereign country whereas Islam transcends borders.
My real point though is that the battle against the extremists needs to come from within the community of Islam - without their assistance the 'War Against Terror' by the West is never going to be "won".
I think that does happen. However, we have to remember that extremists do not just pop into existence. They are made. Mostly by trauma. If we drop a bomb on a village, we make extremists. When we invade someone's land to liberate them, we make extremists. So I would agree with you that this can't be a one sided thing, Muslims must be involved. However, to approach the problem with violence and to expect that to be a solution to violence is utterly lacking in logic.
There are people in this country who hate Obama with all of their being. They would rejoice if he died. They clamor for his removal. However, if Canada were to invade us for the purpose of removing Obama, do you think any of those folks would thank them? Whether American or Iraqi, Christian or Muslim, people are people. If you help someone build a home - you make a friend. If you blow up their home - you make an enemy. That is a simple fact we seem to keep forgetting.
