I'd like to read your reason for why it's not us bombing them why they commit these acts.

Because it's really not getting worked up about. 3 people dying is just not that many. Terrorism doesn't kill enough people to justify any extra money being spent on it.

That has to be one of the most bull-headed, insensitive things I've heard (also flat wrong since a campus police officer was also killed)!What about all the people that were severely injured and lost limbs? Do they not matter?

Still not that many compared to things we can usefully do something about. Like lifestyle diseases in the West or easily curable diseases in the developing world. I'm insensitive to their specific precious "loss", because they're special flower Americans, while many more nameless people die in Syria every day?

Do you think the goal of these wackos was to kill 'only' 3 people? NO! They had several more bombs and a stockpile of ammo they were planning to use and their goal was to kill as many as possible. The main reason many more didn't die was because bystanders and first responders sprang into action so quickly and because those 2 were caught before they could use the rest of their bombs.

Even a few hundred people dead wouldn't be a big deal - unless we let it be one. Then we're terrorised; the terrorists win.

Terrorism doesn't kill that many people in the West largely *BECAUSE* we spend money preventing it.

Lololol. This particular line is the least true thing I've read this week. Our preventing it doesn't do shit. It's covered by normal police activity. But instead, we sacrifice our civil liberties ( indefinite detention without trial, wiretapping) and waste a ton of money preventing a very small number of deaths, in comparison to if we spent that money on education.

There is always the possibility of another mass casualty event like 9/11, and mass death is the goal of these Jihadists. 

Correct. I just believe we are powerless to prevent it if it's gonna happen, and in all likelihood it won't happen. We'd have to monitor everyone 24/7 to prevent it, or restrict movement and trade so much it wouldn't be practical. And even then it might happen, because you know people in charge of security screw up all the time. 

For example, plenty of people have got through airports with guns, possibly explosive substances, and so on. It's a leaky sieve. Despite this, thousands of hours of people's time and billions of dollars are wasted on this security. It's just not cost-effective and nothing can prevent it 100%.

You also don't understand jihad if you speak of it as an organised movement, or claim "al qaeda" wanted this. It's a bunch of individuals who have an idea. You can't kill the idea with bombs or bullets, it's stupid to treat it as "us and them". It's more like, super empowered angry people. Anyone could be one of them to be honest. The important bit isn't the alliegiance.

Thousands of potential lives have been spared just in terror plots that have been broken up by law enforcement.

Point to some. Oh and if you're gonna use the Canada one, they were directly tipped off by the public. Such things could be handled with normal police powers and budget. Show me what the extra funding and loss of civil liberties has done for us.

Also, if you don't think these guys were inspired by radical Islam, you have your head in the sand. Suspect #2 has already told investigators that they were inspired by their religion (a radical brand of Islam), and that they got the knowledge to make the bombs from Al Qaeda's online magazine. All evidence at this point indicates radical Islam as the inspiration for these attacks.

My comment was before we knew more about the case. Yes, they were inspired by radical Islam. But it'd be the same if they were inspired by a dream about a chocolate wonderland. Does it really matter?

The "knowledge to make these bombs" can be found many places. Nothing can be done to stop public information from being shared, the efforts of governments and media companies for years should be proof enough.

I do hope so, because obviously that's the only real way forward and of course as we are all too aware Western intervention is a complete non-starter.

http://ex-muslim.org.uk/ Quite an active group in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_Atheists - Indonesian has the largest Muslim population out of any country.

https://atheistalliance.org/component/sobi2/?sobi2Task=sobi2Details&catid=103&sobi2Id=2356 - Bangladesh is another country with a large Muslim population.

I know they are quite small movements but that's how it all starts, the seeds have already been planted. The fact they even have their own HQ in a Muslim country is a sign of progress.

spurge, is that you?

I think you are just taking the chance without actually knowing, hoping that your claims about the Koran and muslim world-view are correct. They aren't.

Islam aims to submit both the individual and society under it. That's why it is a religious and political ideology (unlike christianity). The Koran is very clear about this and the works of Muhammad himself testify about it by being a military commander who conquered the whole Arabic peninsula, and his followers who conquered and submitted the whole Middle-East within the next 30 years. And within a century, muslims had already conquered Spain and tried to conquer Europe before the Franks stopped them. So they already did try to take over the world. Right from the beginning.

I never said or implied that muslims "want to kill everyone else who isn't Muslim". That's ridiculous. But islam aims to submit everybody under its rule, under islamic governance. You don't have to kill to do that.

The actions of the West do have some impact on muslim behaviour like I already stated, but it annoys me to see this blatant naivity (about islam and the islamic world) and self-hate (always blame the West).

Firstly, it's the "Qur'an".   And how can you tell me what Islam aims to do, when I'm postitive you never even read their holy book.  Ask any Muslim, nothing in the Qur'an demands that Muslims engage in the Islamization of the World by means of violence or other means.

"Islam aims to submit both the individual and society under it. " <---Not true in the slightest.   In a passage of the Qur'an it states, "Thou shall not force Islam upon peers or family".  So I think that right there debunks that.   Don't make such blatant claims about Religion, unless you're actually knowledgable in that field.

The only reason Islam is an policital-ideology is because people in the middle east have been following the Qur'an for so many centuries, that it would only make sense to base the policies on their Religion. 

I think it's fair to blaim the west.  What terrorist attacks have the Islamic world commited before we begun starting wars left and right with them?   This is common sense.  It's not self-hate, we aren't hating ourselves, we're simply just blaiming our goverment which is probably 99% responsible.