Here are two items, both of Canadian provenance, on ways of combating Islamist radicalization and terrorism. The first, by Sheema Khan, highlights a study on the subject coming out of Duke University and identifying five approaches adopted by Muslim-American communities to resisting radicalization - more or less successfully, it seems. The second piece, by Haroon Siddiqui, concludes with a few recommendations of his own. These overlap with the ones summarized by Khan. But Siddiqui also has one that is different:
[M]ost important, stop being in denial that there's no connection between our policies and the angry reaction of many and the violent reaction of some.
While it's reassuring to get this confirmation of the unity of humankind, with Canada evidently having some of the same kind of op-ed writers as Britain does, I was perplexed by Siddiqui's thinking here, since he doesn't spell out how ceasing to be in denial on this matter will combat terrorism. Think about it: some people, who haven't yet faced up to the link there might be between 'our policies' and the angry and violent reaction they produce in certain quarters, now do face up to it. They say to themselves: 'Oh, these angry and violent people are angry over Iraq and/or Afghanistan etc.' Would the anger and violence now dissipate on account of their seeing what they previously hadn't? I don't think so. Like I say, I'm perplexed. Siddiqui couldn't mean that one must only adopt policies that don't make those angry, violent people angry and violent? Could he?