If this is true, heads should roll.

Yes. Which is why I pointed out that muslims are the ones that suffer the most from it.

That works in Naruto tho

 What meaningful difference is there between: a religious leader who radicalizes --and-- a major nation-state that pours funds into groups that are radical and radicalize?

You say that Muslims need to do something, and when shown what they do, say that they need to do more. Yet perhaps you should turn your attention to those who are actively doing the wrong things: President "Drain the Swamp" & Co. just stuck a deal with the single biggest purveyor of radical Islam on planet Earth, which will help them arm terrorist to the teeth for years to come. Nobody, not even his own supporters, voted for that. You have gone on about one part of the equation, yet I see no acknowledgment of the other guilty party through 3 pages of this thread's postings, though their impact is significantly greater.

Ya can't have it both ways.

It's like flooding inner-cities with illegal drugs and then turning around and putting the onus on the residents not to get hooked, not to sell, not to turn to violence to feed their addictions, and to stop gang violence. (Oh wait, the US does that too).

It's just as MLK once said (*trigger warning for Rekahn*): "The greatest purveyor of violence in the world: (the United States) government. I cannot be silent."

I said muslims and the rest of society and its leaders need to do more. Since radicalization among young second gen immigrants is on the rise. That also includes Trump and others. It is all one big package. Radicalization of the youngsters was a on the rise way before Trump got elected. It didn't start this year. He is certainly making it worse, though.

Yet the Irish immigrants did not turn to terror. Neither did the native americans, come to think of it. They got screwed over badly too.

The difference here is that the Quran is being used to radicalize the youngsters. It is working. Hate + Religion is a good mix if you want to cause damage. Bush certainly used it to his advantage when he attacked Iraq. The constant bombing of the arab countries led to terrorist organizations springing up left and right. Removing Gadaffi led to Isis getting a solid foothold. The guy was kind of a wedge. Obama's bombing and drone attacks didn't help either.

As for Trump he hasn't done anything that has led to how things are today. The effects of his inane ideas will be seen in 5 years or so.

So far the problem has been attacked from the outside. Trying to bomb the terrorists themselves. Somewhat effective, I guess but the problem is still growing. Hence why I think attacking it more from the inside out might be better. Do more to keep youngsters from getting brainwashed. This means helping muslim communities battle it from the inside out as well.

The Irish had the advantage of still being European. And Native Americans, in the cases where they weren't treated like sub-human animals and herded and marched into their own gated communities, were aggressive towards the people shoving them off their lands. And they did have religions behind them. Their "drawback" is that they didn't have easy access to explosives and more people in one place than they could even conceive.

I am not going to ignore the role of Islam in their actions, I'm simply saying they would have found a reason anyway.

resistancereport.com/news/white-terrorists-killed-more-this-week/

I, Harold Y Ruck(-?!), am calling for.. a complete and total shutdown... of white people.. until we figure out: what the hell is going on?!

3.115 000  muslims in the UK. 30k marched against Isis? Not a lot is it?