I'm not sure there's evidence that having their own community centers is the issue.
The Manchester guy had little connection to a community, and if you look at the Westminster attacker, he wasn't raise a Muslim, he was a guy with a history of violence, knife attacks, drug and alcohol problems, then in one late stint in jail (he was in at least 4 jails since age 18, mainly for stabbing) he became converted to Islam, by fellow prisoners we can assume. Then he stabbed some more people. what a surprise.
The Westminster attacker teaching in Saudi Arabia suggests that he was part of a community, it is important to know that hiding our heads in the sand when the ideological motives for these repeated attacks are so obvious is not going to help protect the vast majority of innocent muslims - suspicion from this deliberate ignorance will merely be cast against them all, instead of against these violent individuals.
The commonalities seem to be disenfranchisement (could be self-inflicted, but it's still a thing), mental instability and radicalization, but that radicalization often seems to be by like-minded unstable peers rather than a formal community.
With obvious exception to ISIS volunteer fighters, who were young, well-educated, wealthy and being more well-off and connected increased likelihood of radicalization, with radicalization itself often occurring through student societies. They are a far larger concern than mentally ill lone-wolves, indeed radical preachers and propaganda producers are a greater concern.
So it could be the case that any form of stable social support, e.g. a mosque or other community that you're connected to acts as a buffer to harmful outbursts. e.g. a mosque had members who are men, women, children, young and old. Whereas the social group of the two British "jihadis" of recent attacks both seem to have consisted of male same-age peers who likely also had mental issues, rather than being part of what we'd call a community.
Only in so far as the mosque itself is free from radical influences. With the translation of the koran into native languages being forbidden, often a lot of these mentally ill or disenfranchised individuals, who are zealous converts who cannot read arabic, are utterly dependent upon clerics for their interpretation of Islam. Not just in Western countries mind you, this is especially true in non-Arab Muslim countries, one of my friends was stunned to find Indonesian kids for example being made to reciting when they had no idea what the hell they were saying meant. This is an issue when the clerics
want them to kill the infidels. Often too, given the dogmatic approach to holy canon in large branches of the religion, will read and interpret everything in a rather fundamentalist way. It is perhaps useful, if in danger of muddying the waters of clear distinction, to draw comparison between today's "radicalization" and the dilemmas enlightenment era America faced. Its protestants embraced rationalism, humanism and so forth, yet the American populations spread so thin with few historical institutions to bind them, were prone to religious fundamentalism - paradoxically growing communities that would most fiercely reject the very same rational principles their countrymen had helped create. Thus sects like Salafi Islam which wish to return to a pure fundamentalist romantic image of the past, wherein Islam was world-conquering and its followers pure and zealous, can be noted to have appeared as reactions to previous Islamic sects being undermined by modernism and post-modernist thoughts. The West then has many major barriers to face to ever deal with such zealotry the same way they dealt with apocalyptic or fundamentalist Christian cults. The first and foremost is that of state support and quantity, Christian fundamentalists like the Westborough Baptist Church for example have 40 members, Salafi jihadis number
10 million and Salafis number in the tens of millions from Sweden to Bangladesh - being not a dying cause, but the fastest growing religion today. One which has the backing of a particular wealthy state:
"The European Parliament, in a report commissioned in 2013, claimed that Wahhabi and Salafi groups are involved, mainly via Saudi charities, in the 'support and supply of arms to rebel groups around the world.'The other major issue is that most Western academics have zero way to challenge any extremism as they would an extremist Christian sect, for starters there is the PC angle and for seconds they don't speak arabic. There is no justice in seeking to crush adherents of a faith over mass murderers, even given the ideological motive, things are not nearly bad enough to justify abandoning such a fundamental right as the freedom of belief. Still, there exist some very basic civil challenges that could be made that are not made, and laws which could be enforced which are not enforced, largely out of Western terror, whether fear of being killed or fear of being called racist - which is another form of ideological extremism entirely. While I agree the prospect of an overreaction is more dangerous to Western states than some of the attacks, simply doing nothing and allowing extremist networks to become better organized, better connected and increasing the population of disenfranchised Muslims is simply going to ensure not only that the attacks continue increasing in pace, but the state will increasingly grow weaker until there are cracks to be filled by criminals and fighters - much like Sweden struggles with today.
Not to mention the fact that I literally can't think of a better way to spawn a bunch of armed insurgencies, other than something insane like mass executions of suspected muslims.
Given the level of gun control, any successful weapon procurement efforts are likely to attract attention which would come with immediate crackdown. A disarmed populace does not an insurgency make.
And not getting to move to Europe is not a punishment, Sheb. That kind of thinking really reveals how much you look down on the rest of the world.
If not a punishment, what is it?
If you had a choice rescinded because of something one of your countrymen did, someone you have no knowledge of, never met, how would you take it?
Perhaps it reveals more about what Sheb thinks about that logic than what he thinks of the rest of the world.
A choice rescinded? The entire world is not entitled to live in Europe regardless of whether Europeans having not invited, allowed them in or even having rejected or previously deported them. If we are to tell all EU citizens that their countries belong to whoever wishes without their consultation or permission needed, how would they take it? I daresay, we see their reaction now - it is an ugly thing
Not multiculturalism in itself, but rather the current implementation.
Take for example the US. You wouldn't have Halloween, Mardi Gras or even basketball if it wasn't for multiculturalism. Or donuts. Or pretzels. Or pizza.
It's wrong to think that cultural exchange or cultivation requires mass immigration to occur, it occurs irregardless, and to justify policy that will decide the course of civilization on your present day culinary tastes is to lend credence to the argument that Westerners do not deserve the west, and it should rightfully be inherited by migrants who do not support policy in exchange for pizza or pretzels.
Also that is OOOOLD news...
And if you want to bring up historical travesties we could be here all day discussing the UKs 
No we wouldn't, because you buckle the moment someone asks you to back anything up with facts.
Author
Topic: The friendly and polite Europe related terrible jokes thread (Read 1105377 times)