Sadly, Eric, it seems that the European press acts as if Islamic immigration and assimilation is not discussed in sophisticated, multicultural, polite Eurozone circles. Sounds like a job for Euro-bloggers.

A common theme with many of the Arab League Muslims I talk to is the perceived threat that Western lifestyles, which are considered to be both call to sin and an affront to some Muslims' respect for Islam. While many Westernized Muslims, both Arab origin and otherwise, come to terms with Western culture and their religion, and some have even proposed a type of Islamic Reformation or Enlightenment, many of the "old-world" Arabs will not express similar ideas or desires due to the threat of being branded "apostate" and killed.

Fear is a powerful motivator: the terrorists are counting on it - that's exactly what this murder is about. But collectively, the moderate Muslims must stand up to the extremists.

Eric, is it still "terrorism" when the police arrest, charge, and will bring to trial those involved in this crime? I thought "terrorism" only applied when your police were unable to carry out their duties.

Interesting how in all of these cases in Europe, suspects are arrested and charged in public, but nothing of the sort is done is the USA. Instead, secret tribunals, torture, and an international gulag is how you cope.

Maybe you might want to look into this "police" and "justice" thing. I hear it is one of the hallmarks of democracy.

One question: how many people have been murdered in Cleveland this week?

But collectively, the moderate Muslims must stand up to the extremists.

There are a few encouraging signs of this happening; the large demonstrations did include significant numbers of Moslems.

Eric, is it still "terrorism" when the police arrest, charge, and will bring to trial those involved in this crime? I thought "terrorism" only applied when your police were unable to carry out their duties.

It's still terrorism even if the police do rapidly arrest the perpetrators. It doesn't take the resources of a rogue nation to commit acts of terror; all it takes is one nutjob.

Racist or homophobic hate crimes are also a form of terrorism, even if they're not always described as such; the motivation is the same: to intimidate a community into submission.

There was vicious murder of a gay man in London a few days back; several other people were badly beaten by the same gang. The police are treating it as a hate crime. Ironically the murder victim was a survivor of a nail bombing attack of a gay pub five years ago.

Tim, exactly, thanks.

Jim, none for the purpose of political intimidation

"When people think of really dangerous places they think of Washington, D.C., New York, Miami, Los Angeles, but they don't tend to think of smaller places like Flint, Michigan, or Youngstown, Ohio," says Rick Matthews, assistant professor of sociology and anthropology. "But when you examine their homicide rates, they're very, very high compared to the national average."

Another statistic; the total death toll from 'The Troubles' in Northern Ireland over 30 years was much less than the death toll from road accidents in NI for the same period.

Please help me puzzle this out, if you are shot in the face and killed by Phil Spector, that's okay, but if Yousef Islam gets on an commercial airline, that's terrorism?

Or if Maher Arar tries to take a connecting flight in New York and spends a year being tortured in Syria, that's terrorism, but if O.J. Simpson gets away with murdering two people, that's okay.

So, it's not about rule of law or justice, just where you choose to draw lines.

Again, people in the Netherlands have been arrested and charged. Thousands in the States have been disappeared with no charges, no trials, no convictions. That's what the USA has come to represent, a State of Terror.

Dueling statistics are always funny, especially when it's clear someone has an ax to grind and doesn't mind comparing apples to oranges if that seems likely to float their boat and mix their metaphors.

Or to put it another way, Phil Spector and O. J. Simpson are irrelevant to any coherent discussion of terrorism.

Just remember: Last year, more people were killed by automobile accidents, heart attacks, lung cancer, and natural causes combined than by any one tomato.

classic Victor

first, there are no "thousands" disappeared, AND I do not approve of the open-ended detention of anyone without charge or the opportunity to defend themselves

next, there is a vast, obvious difference between terrorism and street crime, economic crime, etc. The intent is different, the result is different (other than regarding the biological viability of the victim).

what exactly is your point? Is there no such thing as "terrorism"? Is it a figment of the world's imagination? Are you saying there are no conspiracies of like-minded individuals that is ideologically based?

I do not get this line of questioning or reasoning whatsoever.

The point I'm trying to make is that homicide is homicide. Labeling it "terrorism" isn't a solution. The solution is as they say in "The Wire" doing po-leese. Using anti-terrorist laws is a means for the police to ensure a conviction.

Theo van Gogh's murderers were arrested and charged, as were the people involved in the Spanish train bombings, as have been the people behind the Bali bombings, and so on.

The solution to these criminal conspiracies is police work and the existing criminal statues, not demanding witch hunts, or denouncing bomb-throwing anarchists, bolsheviks, or what-have you.

A homicide is a homicide, the reason isn't important. If you are afraid of terrorists, then you are worrying about the wrong thing.

Of course, when John Ashcroft says file trading on the internet is terrorism, and big pharma says cheap Canadian prescription drugs is terrorism, well, I guess it is in tune with tenor the times to get all excited about a murder in the Netherlands, rather than realistic risks.

you seem to completely miss the point that "why" matters very much, especially as a predictor of things to come. Any term can be over-used and abused and the instances you cite are certainly that, but the Van Gogh murder is terrorism, pure and simple. The point is to intimidate, to express and attempt to enforce a political/religious viewpoint, and the "witch hunt" for co-conspirators and the like-minded is absolutely part of the "police work" of not only solving a given crime, but more importantly, preventing others.

So, if he'd been murdered by a relative of Valerie Solanis, you'd be cool with that.

Since terrorism is a state of mind, the first step to preventing it is stop being afraid of hypothetical situations. The second is to reinforce the rule of law, and doing real police work to deal with crime. That's why Milosevic (http://www.un.org/icty/milosevic/) is in the dock in the Netherlands.

You're starting to sound so much like my grade 7 moral and religious education teacher who told us if we listened to Alice Cooper, we were going straight to hell. And I never listened to Alice Cooper, and look how I turned out.

that's fine, but there is an extremely legitimate public purpose served by preventing acts of terror, and pretending there is no such thing as terror most assuredly does not make it go away

Essay question: you can have either the role of Bette Davis or Joan Crawford in "What Happened to Baby Jane". Discuss how your role "fights" terrorism. Give examples.

So, Eric, where's your outrage about the firebombing of elementary schools in the Netherlands by racist right groups?

Where's the outrage? Or is that not terrorism?

Or is that just a police matter?

Here's the apples to apples:

What makes the act of killing this Van Gogh an act of political intimidation is the fact that the man made a film critical of Islam.

Jim, what would your response be if someone on the American political right killed Michael Moore and finished the job by sticking a note to his chest via stiletto? My response is that it would be political intimidation.

So, it is time for the outrage for the political intimidation murder of Van Gogh.

and I am absolutely outraged by the firebombing of schools for political purposes, and would call it rataliatory terrorism, which I would take just as seriously - no one was killed, though, unless I am misinformed

I hate to admit this, but the whole Van Gogh thing has me thinking. Imho, those of us that are to the left of center should be opposing Bush's fascism AND Islamo-fascism jointly. (in fact, I just blogged this whole point over on my site)

If you sit back and think about it, Bush's idea of order is not nearly as bad as the idea of Islamic fascism, it's actually much more tolerant.

Remember, an "order" is the fundamental component of fascism...and any leaning to the right is on the road to fascism, while any leaning to the left or toward equality is on the road to socialism/communism.

My case: most people in the US are politically equal (=voting, etc.) and have some semblance of equality of opportunity. I see nothing in Bush policy that is attempting to change those fundamentals.

However, if you actually watch the Van Gogh movie, it strikes a chord, as it demonstrates some of the horrors that women (and I'm sure others) face on a daily basis in Islamic nations.

Do we want that here? Do want to allow Wahabis to control the oil supply and drive up the cost of oil and end our culture as we know it?

We on the left can deride the US all we want, but I don't see any women here getting their genitalia mutlilated systematically. I don't see any women wearing birqas or being raped by uncles.

Opposition to this war has been politicized for all of the wrong reasons, in my opinion. In Britain, it was the right that opposed the war in Iraq, in the US, it was the left. Why? Because they were both the parties OUT OF POWER.

Ideologically, the left should be in complete support of this war, but for some reason we choose not to out of political expediency. That's a problem, folks...and it's ideologically inconsistent.