Forgetting &quot;us&quot; vs &quot;them&quot; and the right-wing &quot;99% muslims are evil&quot; versus the left-wing &quot;99% muslims are good&quot;, I&#x27;ve always been interested in the things people disavow when acts of evil are committed.<p>Violence, the loss of innocents, and all the very obvious unpleasantries: it&#x27;s easy to denounce that all in times and places of peace. Everyone can agree that murder is wrong, and certainly no one wants to be seen as evil according the social climate.<p>The true test of honesty, and perhaps the beginning of any real reconciliation, is if the leaders of groups are willing to disavow the thoughts and words behind the acts.  This applies to left, right, muslim, christian. It applies just as much to political ad campaigns drawing cross-hairs over their enemies, to the salafist clerics mongering extreme fundamentalism.<p>A leader cannot merely say, &quot;this person is not us, because she or he has committed violence and we are not violent&quot;. Rather a leader must say &quot;this person is not us because she or he has said bad things and had bad thoughts and we refuse to say those words or share the same thoughts.&quot;<p>Thoughts are the source of words, which are then the source of action: if a leader  only attacks the lagging indicator, he or she may reveal their complicity.<p>Specifically regarding the article: Muslims in the U.S. are generally very good about attacking the source and not just the deed. The same does not appear to be true in Europe.