Why silly saugages want to blow people up?

[Borboski]

Over the past few years, arguing on here and with other people, a definate theme has been the liberal and leftist need to understand the root causes of terrorism.  In a very simplistic way, which basically goes "some people, incredibly, want to at least blow up innocent civilians and even themselves up.  They must have a good reason for doing so?  In fact, the people who are being blown up must have done something to antagonise these people.  If we could stop doing whatever it is they don't like, then they wouldn't have to blow us up, would they?".

Elsewhere I've got quite giddy about Paul Berman's book Terror and Liberalism and also Nick Cohen's What's Left, who tackle this issue.  Why are the parts of the left so scared to call a spade a spade and an islamo-fascist an islamo-fascist?

There've been some excellent pieces written lately, so here are some links which you might find interesting:

A must read in the Observer.  Hassan Butt used to be a member of Al-Muhajiroun and probably has blood on his hands - recruiting, fund raising and possibly much more.  But - he has renounced Islamism and is, quite bravely, speaking out.  He's already been attacked for doing so.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2115832,00.html

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

Assim Sidiqui in the Guardian criticising blaming foreign policy for suicide attacks.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/asim_siddiqui/2007/07/not_in_our_name.html

Another must read, Shiv Malik in the excellent Prospect, who went to Leeds to find out about Siqqique Khan.  One of the most worrying aspects here, for me, is that the local community centre seems to have been a hotbed of radicalism - this seems borne out by other stories.  In an attempt to support "communities" youth workers and community development workers seem to have been employed with the most radical political views, and allowed to spend public resources supporting fringe groups.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9635

This article discusses what seems to be a generational problem within muslim communities - 2nd and 3rd generation young men who feel isolated and turn away from the conservative/mainstream orthodoxy preached by there parents.  Interesting stuff.

[Mr. Analytical]

I don't think that liberalism is currently equipped to explain terrorism.

Liberals want to look for root causes in poverty or lack of education but then just this weekend surgeons and neurologists were looking to blow themselves up.  Similarly, liberals want to find a legitimate political grievance in terrorism but I don't think that these people's belief systems are all that coherent or even political.

I think that it's worth remembering that while a lot of people act in a cuntish manner because they've been hard done by and other people act in a cuntish fashion because they think they're doing something for the greater good, there are people who are just cunts.

Wanting to blow up a nightclub on lady's night and targetting another nightclub because it contains "slags dancing around" is just being a cunt.

[jutl]

Over the past few years, arguing on here and with other people, a definate theme has been the liberal and leftist need to understand the root causes of terrorism.  In a very simplistic way, which basically goes "some people, incredibly, want to at least blow up innocent civilians and even themselves up.  They must have a good reason for doing so?  In fact, the people who are being blown up must have done something to antagonise these people.  If we could stop doing whatever it is they don't like, then they wouldn't have to blow us up, would they?".

Firstly I think your association of the analytical approach to terrorism with the political left is a little unfair to the political right. The struggle is between pragmatism and rejectionism, among Muslims and non-Muslims, left and right.

Secondly, your description of the pragmatic argument is over-simplified. Intellectual engagement with the issues does not automatically lead to a conclusion that it is only ourselves (the West, that is) who must change.

Overall, I think your post says most about the situation as you want it to be, not as it is. It may well be that radical Islam must change itself and that as a consequence, 'we' need not. If that happens, though, I think it will be a consequence of 'our' political and military power, not our intrinsic correctness.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

Firstly I think your association of the analytical approach to terrorism with the political left is a little unfair to the political right. The struggle is between pragmatism and rejectionism, among Muslims and non-Muslims, left and right.

Agreed.  The other issue is the need to both understand the mindset of those fighting you allows you to do one or more of three things.  1: To discover if they have a legitimate greviance that is effectively your fault.  2: To understand what they might do next and how they might react to things that you do.  3: To know how to beat them.

The idea of calling a spade a spade doesn't scan because a spade is an easily-definable inanimate object, whereas a terrorist is a person with motivations, an ideology and experiences that has led him to becoming a terrorist.  If Major and Blair took the spade attitude with Gerry Adams we still wouldn't have peace in NI.

[George Oscar Bluth II]

I think people find the idea of people who live in this country hating our way of life so much that they're willing to blow themselves up in opposition to it profoundly odd and perhaps a little disturbing. Same with the idea that they're fighting for a global caliphate, which is, in the minds of most sensible people, impossible.

It's far easier for us to get their heads around the idea that they're doing it because of Iraq or Afghanistan. Because, to us, that (sort of) makes sense and there seems to be a way for us to lower the risk of attacks.

In reality, short of appointing a Grand Ayatollah in Gordon Brown's place and making women wear the burqa there isn't actually a way we can stop them wanting to kill us. Which isn't really a very nice thought.

[Still Not George]

There have been former extremists interviewed before, Borbs, and they've said other things. It's almost like the situation is complicated, multifaceted and not a straightforward run between "They're all evil ragheads wot want to kill us" vs "It's all our fault, we clearly deserve it."

I do remember that when I saw that article yesterday I immediately came here to see if you'd launched a crowing thread about it. I'm disappointed it took you so long.

[Borboski]

What do you mean by pragmatism and rejectionism?

I'm not really claiming to understand "the situation" - I think both jutl and Santa's Boyfriend think I'm claiming to understand what drives terrorists and what the solution would be.  I'm not - what I'm saying is the media, and leaders like Ken Livingstone, have presented a particular viewpoint for a period of time.

I assume it's a mixture of well-meaning, and not wanting to offend muslims, mixed with a lack of understanding of the different muslim generational trends, and existence of radical Islamism which the Shiv Malik article talks about, plus some political posturing from the likes of Livingstone to appeal to a broad musim audience and not ruffle any feathers.

And of course it would be very hard for the predominantly white, establishment to say to British Muslims "stop it now.  Elements of your youth are being attracted to extremism.  Work with us NOW to bring them back in to normality" - I think they should, though.  More importantly, these recent articles inspire in me a feeling of hope that even complete numbskulls like Inyat Bungalwala are being challenged by other muslim voices who are saying - "hang on - you don't speak for me.  The things you say are not true.".  'Not in my name', used accurately.

So, thankfully, Cif is no longer giving such space to competely mental Islamist groups.  Similar C4 and the Beeb.  Similarly the Government is no longer talking to Bungwala.  And as a result - the MCB is saying some quite reasonable things about co-operation with the police:

http://we%20must%20start%20by%20expressing%20our%20appreciation%20to%20those%20police%20officers%20who%20were%20tasked%20with%20securing%20the%20area%20and%20removing%20the%20threat%20from%20the%20explosive%20device.%20it%20is%20now%20a%20duty%20upon%20all%20the%20rest%20of%20us%20to%20help%20the%20police%20so%20that%20they%20can%20bring%20whoever%20was%20involved%20in%20this%20plot%20swiftly%20to%20justice,"%20said%20dr%20muhammad%20abdul%20bari,%20secretary-general%20of%20the%20muslim%20council%20of%20britain.

Look at this:

It looks sadly as if the terror threat currently facing our country will be with us for some time to come. So let us be absolutely clear about this: those who seek to deliberately kill or maim innocent people are the enemies of all of us. There is no cause whatsoever that could possibly justify such barbarity. Those who engage in such murderous actions and those that provide support for them are the enemies of all, Muslims and non-Muslims, and they stand against our shared values in the UK.

That's exactly what the MCB should be saying, not tying itself up in weasel words.

Via Harry's Osama Saeed (Muslim activist who writes a big for the Guardian)is now quoted as saying:

Conceivably there's only two things that we can do - the first is to make it clear that there's no theological justification for any of this, and we've been doing that for years and will continue to do so.  And the second thing is to urge the community that if they do see anything suspicious to report it, and to support the police.

Now - chaps like Osama Saeed are being a little bit saucey... last November he was saying, "There can be no excuse for being scared of the police. If we look at the history of our faith, what else is there other than the Prophet's example to stand up to tyranny and stand up to oppression.  The police are doing their jobs and their job is to push the boat out and push the limits they can push. Our job is to resist that, and resist that we must."

Paul Berman recently put out an excellent article discussing Tariq Ramadam - pointing out Tariq's explicitly stated Islamist intellectual heirs and writings are ignored by Western liberals who want to praise him.  Tariq's able to have two conversations, one with nicey-nice liberals, and one with Muslims who are able to find an intellectual basis for extremism (I'm exaggerating only slightly).  Berman picks out exactly how Garton-Ash (who I like) and Iam Baruma do this recently, and compares their treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  I really recommend this article, it's quite long, but like the piece of Siddique Khan is excellent:  http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ah6sxjndq9qq_315dwk7qn

And so, I'm pleased that we are finally beginning to see some relatively authentic voices criticise extremism, and we're seeing some of the leadership groups reflect that.  I, in the short term, don't particularly care if the MCB is taking a hard-line on extremism solely for pragmatic reasons (e.g. so the Government will talk to them again).  At least they're taking a hardline.

And look!  Even today the excellent Safran Manzoor has a piece arguing that mainstream British muslims need to reclaim there religion.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sarfraz_manzoor/2007/07/reclaiming_our_religion.html

[Borboski]

Oh, I'd just like to make clear that I don't think the Guardian Comment is Free site is "the world", I know there's a real world out there filled with people who don't argue on the internet.

[jutl]

In reality, short of appointing a Grand Ayatollah in Gordon Brown's place and making women wear the burqa there isn't actually a way we can stop them wanting to kill us. Which isn't really a very nice thought.

It's a good thing, then, that it's far from demonstrated. The biggest proponents of the 'No terrorist wants anything other than a Global Caliphate' argument are those who wouldn't consider any form of compromise on our side, let alone Gordon Brown donning a scimitar and curly slippers. Seeing as Bin Laden himself has offered conditional peace terms to Europe and the US previously, it's hard to prop up the 'no peace until we have a global Umma' view of Islamic militancy.

edit to add: This thread is worth a look on this issue.

[Borboski]

The biggest proponents of the 'No terrorist wants anything other than a Global Caliphate' argument are those who wouldn't consider any form of compromise on our side, let alone Gordon Brown donning a scimitar and curly slippers.

Not true.  You will also find the people holding that view making strong cases for the West to intervene to defend persecuted muslims in, say Darfur; to increase aid and development and political reform in the muslim world; to develop community relations with muslims in this country; to ensure young muslim men can get jobs and thrive in society, etc.

Terrorists may want nothing other than the global caliphate, but not all muslims are terrorists, although Islam is at the moment where terrorists come from.  And there are lots of muslims.  Therefore we need to work with muslims.

[Borboski]

Thanks for the link - the bit on Pipes looks interesting 3 pages in, I will read that tonight.

Back to work for meee!

[jutl]

Not true.  You will also find the people holding that view making strong cases for the West to intervene to defend persecuted muslims in, say Darfur; to increase aid and development and political reform in the muslim world; to develop community relations with muslims in this country; to ensure young muslim men can get jobs and thrive in society, etc.

None of those things are compromises to Islamic values...

[Al Tha Funkee Homosapien]

Wow, that Prospect article is amazing, and pretty depressing.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

The longer it goes on, the more they will actually turn most of the muslim world fundamentally anti-Muslim (it's pretty bad already). So I think ordinary Muslims have a hell of a job on trying to kick the extremism out as well as convincing the rest of us they aren't all like that. So we could have a situation where fundamentalist islam makes the western world go out to get it by simply provoking them to do it, in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Borboski]

None of those things are compromises to Islamic values...

Ah, I see.  But still, saying "no compromise with muslims" without acknowledging all the good stuff we should also be doing isn't really fair.  I mean, you said "any form of compromise on our side", you didn't say "any form of compromise with the strictest variant of radical Islam".   These two statements are different.

EDIT: Harry's Place have just put up a post which says pretty much the exact thing as me above.  In case anyone comes across it, I produced my stuff here BEFORE reading Harry's Place!  I'm quite happy admitting that I get all my ideas from other people, but not on this occasion.

[jutl]

Ah, I see.  But still, saying "no compromise with muslims" without acknowledging all the good stuff we should also be doing isn't really fair.

I'm not sure anyone's doing that, though. I just think it's worth drawing a distinction between compromise in this conflict and good works that are at best unrelated. To a jaundiced eye some of the actions you cite could be seen as a form of 'Westernisation' of Muslims through politicised charity. That's not my view, but I can see an argument there.

I mean, you said "any form of compromise on our side", you didn't say "any form of compromise with the strictest variant of radical Islam".   These two statements are different.

To be clear, by compromise I mean doing things that we have been asked to do by representatives of radical Islamic terrorism.

[Borboski]

Ah ok.

So do you think there are some concessions to radical Islamism which we should be making?  Not just in a - yeah, we'll let you do what you want to do in other countries* sense, but in the sense of, say, applying the law differently in honour killings trials because of different cultural norms, as I think has been the case in German courts recently.  I read something in Die Spiegel.

*To some degree this was government policy, allowing Islamists to thrive just in the UK as long as they were important frothy bonkers types going out the country into Pakistan and Afghanistan.  And you can see why, given how hard the Gov gets thrashed when it goes anyway near civil liberties.

[jutl]

Ah ok.

So do you think there are some concessions to radical Islamism which we should be making?  Not just in a - yeah, we'll let you do what you want to do in other countries* sense, but in the sense of, say, applying the law differently in honour killings trials because of different cultural norms, as I think has been the case in German courts recently.  I read something in Die Spiegel.

I think that domestic policy is probably the last area that needs attention. The big problems are international and relate to the perceived domination of 'Islamic' countries by Christians and Jews. In these cases I think that there's a lot we could do to persuade all but the frothiest of extremists that we are serious about righting some of the wrongs of the past. We can't depose the Sauds and fly all the Israelis out, but we can acknowledge that it is legitimate to hold a different view from ours on these issues and then negotiate in that spirit. I suspect that Blair will push this agenda in his new role, and perhaps be able to draw with him some of the Western rejectionists who admire him personally. I certainly hope that he has an opportunity to work as hard for reconciliation as he has previously for division.

*To some degree this was government policy, allowing Islamists to thrive just in the UK as long as they were important frothy bonkers types going out the country into Pakistan and Afghanistan.  And you can see why, given how hard the Gov gets thrashed when it goes anyway near civil liberties.

I can't really agree that the government gets exaggeratedly criticised for varying our civil liberties. They have received a lot of flak about it, but then they've also done it a lot, rightly or wrongly. 

[Al Tha Funkee Homosapien]

*To some degree this was government policy, allowing Islamists to thrive just in the UK as long as they were important frothy bonkers types going out the country into Pakistan and Afghanistan.  And you can see why, given how hard the Gov gets thrashed when it goes anyway near civil liberties.

Isn't there some suggestion that pre-7/7 that there was a kind of agreement between some of the crazier Imams/mullahs/jihadis and the security services that they could stay here as long as they didn't do any silly sausage stuff in Britain? People like Haroon Rashid Aswat.

[Ciarán]

I'm thinking about Francis Fukuyama's book "The End Of History". In that, he argues that with the collapse of soviet communism, liberal capitalist democracy has been shown to be not just the dominant ideological force of our times, but the "end point" of world history. In other words, it's all been leading to this. The only worry from here on (Fukuyama was writing this in 1991-92) will be that societies will get bored and there'll be sporadic bursts of violence from time to time, nothing on a major scale though. But the era of world ideological struggles, Fukuyama argued, has some to an end. Ideology itself, one might extrapolate from this argument, has also come to an end. We're often told that we live in a post-ideological world, and that ideals like freedom, justice and so on are not mere ideologies but absolute inalienable rights - norms even - in a stable, modern society.

In the old days, before liberal democracy ruled the world, there was still this sort of "us against them" mentality. The nobles vs the savages, the English vs the French, the bourgeoisie vs the monarchy, the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie, the U.S. vs the Commies etc. Now, with globalisation/ worldwide capitalism, there is no clear and distinct enemy - perhaps for the first time in history. Communism is seen as this nightmare which the world finally awoke from at the end of the 80s. The idea of war breaking out between industrial nations seems like a distant threat - nations are united by their capitalist interests, the foundation of the EU, the UN and so on has seen to that. (In this respect, the recent, scary developments in the relationship between the US and Russia seems like a blip, which reminds us of the bad old days of the Cold War). It is as if liberal democracy is the natural way of organising society on a global scale. The "Islamists" (I'm not entirely sure what that term means actually), perhaps find themselves on the wrong side of this "right", "natural" global world order. They find themselves living in a supposedly democratised world (whether in the middle East where troops roll into town to impose "law and order") or in the UK were economic migrants find themselves having to cede their religious beliefs to fit the norms of the society  or State they find themselves in. In not having a distinct enemy, globalisation has created an enemy for itself from within itself - it is haunted by what it has surpressed (i.e. an enemy, an "other", an adversary). So instead of being able to see the enemy from a distance and deal with its threat, the "enemy" is like a virus within the globalised system - in other words "terrorism". But acts of terrorism only seem to bolster the order of things, they seem to enhance the demand for democracy in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. In other words terrorism (be it in any part of the world, Spain, Israel or whatever) and what it attacks (i.e. all-encompassing  hegemonic power) are one and the same thing. They're not opposite positions, they thrive on each other in a bizarre way. Two sides of the same coin, to use the old cliché.

I suppose people - individuals - decide to blow themselves and others up, because they feel they're caught on the wrong side of this natural law. If you don't agree with democracy, well have your say, but you have to live with it, so tough shit - the people have spoken. to someone who isn't happy with this state of things and who finds themselves out of the loop not just ideologically but in the context of some supposed natural order, the temptation to self-destruct may be strong. I think terrorism is part of the self-destruction of western culture as we know it today.

[jutl]

I'm thinking about Francis Fukuyama's book "The End Of History". In that, he argues that with the collapse of soviet communism, liberal capitalist democracy has been shown to be not just the dominant ideological force of our times, but the "end point" of world history.

...much like Leo Strauss' argument that some societies are just Right and others are not, and that trying to say that it's a matter of opinion just makes you a cunt. I just find these kind of futile attempts to generalize and concretize personal opinion extremely depressing. By all means stick up for what you believe in, but don't try to form a false and myopic rationale for your beliefs being unarguably superior. It's charmless and lacks imagination.

[Ciarán]

I don't go along with Fukuyama either, and I think that the rise of terrorism - or at least the rise of world hype about terrorism - is the beginnings of some kind of collapse of capitalist, globalised society. Then the next distinct epoch of histroy will emerge. How long that'll take is another matter. It is the unquestioning acceptance of "democracy" (I feel the inverted commas are justified here), "freedom" and all the other things the UN, the US, the EU and the big multinational companies supposedly stand for that got us to the position we're in now - where most people seem to believe that the world is basically alright, but for a few spoilsports who want to ruin it for everyone else. I don't agree with that kind of view of course.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

Now, with globalisation/ worldwide capitalism, there is no clear and distinct enemy - perhaps for the first time in history...The idea of war breaking out between industrial nations seems like a distant threat - nations are united by their capitalist interests, the foundation of the EU, the UN and so on has seen to that.

Sorry, which world is this again?

[P K Duck]

So... the question is why do people want to know why people blow other people up?

The answer to the title of the thread is easy if you look at modern history, and especially at who stirs up these feelings of suicidal righteousness, who funds it, and what these paymasters' goals are.

The answer to the question you appear to be asking is simple too: there is a lot of money selling books to lifestyle leftists, just as there is to lifestyle conservatives. They are both false paragdims anyway, and scaresly represent the way that these consumers actually live their lives.

[Al Tha Funkee Homosapien]

The answer to the title of the thread is easy if you look at modern history, and especially at who stirs up these feelings of suicidal righteousness

Who?,

who funds it,

Who's that?

and what these paymasters' goals are.

What are they?

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

GYPSIES

GYPSIES

A GLOBAL GYPSY STATE

[Al Tha Funkee Homosapien]

Right! Where's my pitchfork?

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Yeah! Someone bring some flaming torches along, just in case it gets dark and we haven't skewed all the sausages.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

I've got some Famous Five books - we could patronise the Gypsies to death.

[P K Duck]

Who?,
Who's that?
What are they?

"I'm glad you asked me that..."

Ready?

Let's start with the so-called radical Islam that stirred up in Afghanistan since 1978, as the root of all our modern propaganda can be found there for the most part.

So what happened in '78 then? Nur Muhammad Taraki's People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan seized power. Many of the leaders of the PDPA had studied or received military training in the USSR. Also, the Soviet Union had pressured the PDPA (which had split into two factions in 1967) to reunite in 1977.

So the military coup of 1978 was effectively engineered by the USSR, which had significant leverage over the PDPA and its activities.

The new government, like previous ones, was essentially illegitimate, with no substantial representation of the Afghan population. It was responsible for arresting, torturing and executing both real and suspected enemies, setting off the first major refugee flows to Pakistan. Such policies of repression and persecution, resulting in the killing of thousands, as well as the forceful imposition of a Communist revolutionary programme that was oblivious to the sentiments of the majority of the Afghan masses, sparked off popular revolts led by local social and religious leaders—usually with no link to national political groups.

So in the beginning of the era, Islam was a anti-communist freedom flag to many, and we all know what happens to people who try to rebel against the USSR...

A full Soviet invasion was on the cards then, and the West was keen to encourage it. The US fostered and manipulate unrest amongst various Afghan factions to destabilise the already unpopular Communist regime and bring the country under the U.S. sphere of influence. They also strengthened to road networks that lead to the capital. The UK played a more subtle game, developing key leaders in certain factions by improving their communications network, and supplying listening equipment to spy on the incoming Soviets, a huge strategic advantage.

So... roll on 27th December 1979, and the Soviet tanks burnt across the US funded highways to Kabul, straight into "the Afghan trap", which eventually bankrupted Mother Russia (along with other concurrent events).

Hundreds of high ranking Afghan politicians and army officers fled to Pakistan with the hope of organizing the needed resistance to oppose the invader in order to liberate Afghanistan.

Unfortunately for all of us today, the CIA was waiting for them.

The CIA, in alliance with Pakistani military intelligence, provided covert military aid, training and direction to the Afghan rebels. The U.S.-sponsored operation also involved the creation of an extremist religious ideology derived from, but distorting the actual teachings of, Islam: Predominant themes were that Islam was a complete socio-political ideology (it's not, never has been, never will be), that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow.

This arrangement had four awful effects : it ruled out the creation of any responsible Afghan political opposition movement, it meant repelling the Red Army solely using Afghan nationals in the firing line, it made Afghanistan a satellite puppet state of Pakistan, and it sparked the rise of illegitimate, radicalised "Islam" in the region.

Roll on to 1996, where our good friends and business partners, the Taliban, emerged as the dominant faction after combining and/or killing many others. As a coherent politico-military faction or movement, the Taliban did not exist prior to October 1994, but were members of other factions, such as Harakat-e Islami and Mohammad Nabi Mohammadi, or operated independently without a centralised command centre.

When the Taliban took Kabul, the event was largely orchestrated by the Pakistani secret service and funded by the oil company Unocal, with its Saudi ally Delta. For the next three years the Taliban amused themselves by implementing a two-pronged programme of ethnic cleansing and genocide. They also excelled at misogyny, using their CIA-rewritten pseudo-Islam to justify the complete dominance of women in their zones of military control. The phrase "Islamic Justice" became synonymous with brutal tyranny. The extremist religious 'jihadi' ideology cultivated in Pakistan/US sponsored training programmes, intertwined with tribal norms and values, combined and gave rise to the distorted 'Islamic' system within Afghanistan.

And that's pretty much where I can stop typing. All of our current home-grown loony fake Islam finds its roots in the counter-soviet training programme implemented by Pakistan and the US 1979-2001. This era gave birth to a monstrous idea, a distortion of a religion, and the legitimisation of extreme cruelty towards those who do not subscribe to it.

That idea, coupled with legitimate Islam's original role as a grass-roots freedom movement, has somewhat spread, the latter giving it a veneer of respectability it does not deserve.

This idea now serves the purpose of internalising an enemy within our own countries. Otherwise sane people become enraptured by the idea that they are serving freedom's purpose when they attend these mad mullah ranting sessions. And so when, for example, the head of the FBI wanted someone to blow up the Trade Centre February 26, 1993, he could certain who would be dumb enough to be patsies for the plan. Ditto our fab four bombers on 7/7. We now have a built-in, ready-to-rock, rentanutter brigade who can be persuaded at almost a moment's notice to run amok, allowing problem-reaction-solution, and the land that we stand on is no longer ours because we vote it over to someone else for security. The upshot is we work longer hours for less pay and higher taxes, and we still get blown up from time to time.


So... yeah... Islamo-fascist is better written psuedo-Islamo-fascist, because it has as much to do with Islam as the tooth-fairy has to do with rectums.