[zigzigzag]

I've never liked May's authoritarian tendencies - no way does that stuff remain restricted to targeting Islamism - but your last paragraph is in fact exactly what they are doing.

Having asked the question of "why do they want to kill random strangers", the answer they arrived at is "because they were brainwashed by religious fundamentalism they found on the internet".

Obviously nobody knows yet the specifics of this case, but I'm not sure why they think that given that the Ariane Grande event seemed to be radicalisation through family. It wasn't clear the internet played much role.

However, the UK Government has made repeated references to plots that were foiled (no details provided). If those plots were investigated and the root cause was frequently identified as "spent too much time surfing jihadi ideology" then I can see why they'd conclude the answer is internet regulation.

[infodroid]

> Having asked the question of "why do they want to kill random strangers", the answer they arrived at is "because they were brainwashed by religious fundamentalism they found on the internet".

To a reasonable person, it should be obvious this is just a proximate cause and not the root cause. Browsing the internet and then being exposed to hateful ideas doesn't automatically turn you into a murderer.

The deeper cause is surely that "jihadi ideology" is effective at appealing to European youth. But nobody is talking about why this is in fact the case or what are the reasons why it is so attractive to some people.

For one thing, the problem of jihadi terrorism isn't going to go away without confronting the ideology head-on. I think we must have a painfully honest discussion about "jihadi ideology" and to debunk it. Radicalization isn't an inevitable outcome of being exposed to these ideas but is rather the result of losing the argument with friends, loved ones, civilization.

Banning this stuff isn't going to make it less appealing to some people or to make it disappear from the internet. But it does give government the power to censor ideas they deem to be dangerous and liable to "brainwash" the youth. And you have to ask whether you trust your politicians to use such powers responsibly.

[Spooky23]

You mention "European youth"... my guess is that many of these people who end up radicalized do not self-identify as European.

This is a problem in open societies like the US and Europe. There a lot of "sects" choosing to wall themselves off, but they are learning to wield considerable political power in doing so.

[EliRivers]

But nobody is talking about why this is in fact the case or what are the reasons why it is so attractive to some people.

I think a lot of people are talking about that, and have been for some years. There's certainly a lot of articles to be found about it going back a few years, and many of the intervention and prevention programmes discuss the appeal of jihadi ideology to European youth.

[laretluval]

There will always be a set of mentally ill people who have the potential to be influenced to violence by rhetoric: not everyone is rational. In these circumstances, why do you think it is desirable to create an unfettered communication platform that allows everyone easy access to this population?

[infodroid]

Unlike famous mass shootings and stabbings in recent years by depressed or mentally disturbed individuals, most jihadi fighters don't have such problems. The fact is that jihadi terrorists usually turn out to be otherwise normal people. They are as rational as you or me, and people can't seem to accept or understand this. Just look at the numbers of Europeans travelling to Iraq, Libya, Syria to fight, to sacrifice their lives for this ideology. Or the tens of thousands who are already in ISIS. You can't tell me that most of them have mental problems.

A major problem in Europe is that there is no challenge to jihadi rhetoric, except for the far-right freak show, because the whole thing is taboo. You can't defeat jihadi ideology by pretending it doesn't exist, which is what you're effectively doing when you restrict online access and communication. It's a knee-jerk yet cowardly way to avoid confronting the problem.

[jononor]

Everyone is influenced by rhetoric (to some degree). Everyone has irrational weaknesses. It is one of the reasons why a monopoly on communication is very dangerous.

[jimnotgym]

So would you also ban books about it? News articles maybe?

[Broken_Hippo]

Exactly. To me, if the reason why folks kill others is because they were brainwashed (due to religious fundamentalism or not), the correct action would be to solve the issues that cause folks to be drawn to such fundamentalism.

[krona]

> I'm not sure why they think that given that the Ariane Grande event seemed to be radicalisation through family

Just on a point of fact, Abedi almost certainly wasn't radicalized by his own family, although some of them knew it was happening.

From The Telegraph/NYT:

Salman Abedi is understood to have made calls to two mobile phone numbers based in Libya, which were not registered to his family, moments before the massacre that killed 22 people.

Abedi, 22, has been connected to Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil) terror group Katibat al-Battar al-Libi, based in Libya, which is credited with being behind a number of attacks in Europe, including the Paris attacks which left 129 people dead and dozens injured after coordinated attacks on the Bataclan concert hall and the Saint-Denis Stadium. Two senior US intelligence officials told the New York Times that Abedi was in contact with al-Battar members both on his visits to Tripoli and by phone while in the UK.

There is lots of other information which ties these dots together, such as the particular materials and techniques used to construct the bomb he exploded.

[acqq]

That info doesn't mean that he haven't received radical ideas in his mosque and his family. Unless you consider "Islam will rule the world soon" and "death to the homosexuals" not radical. Specifically in the mosque site there were "favourite videos" of one U.S. Islam preacher with these messages.

"Freedom" of religion is not understood properly today.

[krona]

"Islam will rule the world soon" and "death to the homosexuals" are not radical ideas in Muslim communities, and certainly aren't sufficient to incite anyone in the legal sense.

Radicalization takes place within an atmosphere of complicity, which is part of the problem, but hardly the root cause.

On the other hand, teaching young impressionable men how to make a bomb designed specifically to kill people, and to give them the mens rea, motive and encouragement is radicalization.