Dear Mil Observer....*Hands Mil Ob a pair of newly calibrated Mil Spec binoculars*....

I'm afraid you are making some totally silly statements.

One such is "Fear itself is not rational" err.. 'rubbish'...

The UN Charter on Refugees uses the term 'well founded fear'....

Fear is what you feel when faced with a threat you know is for real.

Fear is what I felt when the predeeding year of RAAF apprentices told us that if we ever fought back against them, they would make sure we were hospitalized for a goodly period. It was for that reason that I didn't fight back when being pummeled mercilessly until I was black and blue by one particular person. It had nothing to do with 'ability to fight back' against an individual..but everything to do with FEAR of being hospitalized and losing the opportunity to complete my valued training. (at that stage the failure of just one weekly test was enough to see us kicked out)

Fear.can be very ratonal..... SOME fear is not.

Fear for your physical safety concerning a Christian following Christ's example is absolutely irrational. Fear of a literalist Muslim, claiming he follows Mohamad's exmaple is quite rational. Ask Theo Von Gogh..oh wait.. we can't..he's dead.

Fear of Islam should have nothing to do with anecdotal behavior of Muslims.. rather..with the teachings of Islam itself.

Anecdotal behavior which confirms these beliefs is a bonus.
"Muslim Enclave in WA"...kinda supports this hyothesis.

Response to bigmal's interjection first, just to show its circular futility:

“If western liberalists want to end hostility against themselves instantaneously, here's how:
1. Focus their indignation on liberalists committing violent acts in the name of Liberalism, not on non-liberalists reporting on those acts.
2. Renounce definitively not just 'terrorism', but any intention to violate sovereignty (or the constitutions of Islamic/non-Liberalist states) with regime change even by peaceful means/embargoes.
3. Teach liberalists the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-liberalists on an indefinite basis.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in liberalist institutions all over the world to teach against the ideas of imperialism and western supremacism.
5. Actively work with non-Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend imperialists within Western expatriate communities.
If westerners do those five things...”, etc.
[I don't advocate the above prescription: it's patronizing, presumptuous, and futile]

But bigger problems with bigmal's take on things arise in the forensics of non-state terrorism. What if bigmal's omniscient-seeming “threat assessment” (done in advance!) is inaccurate?

Recall from the '70s and '80s how the UK government and press attributed any UK terrorist outrages to the IRA or “factions”. Much public evidence since has revealed puppet operations for widespread assassination of IRA, non-IRA and anti-IRA subjects – many claim bombings too (via anti-IRA targets, British agents sought to confirm their “loyal” reputation among IRA circles).

Think outside of your loop for a moment. Imagine that you sought to destabilize or coerce a state with terrorist mayhem in order to force trade privileges, regime change, disrupt a rising rival or alliance, quash dissent, impose strategic cooperation, etc. Would you launch terror with your own forces, or a proxy – say operators run from Dubai or Saudi, via organized crime networks like that of Mumbai smuggling kingpin Dawood Ibrahim?

Of course, you'd cultivate desperadoes, preferably home-grown and with a suitably traumatized and hopeless family background of loss from ethnic and/or sectarian political warfare. What was that Bolshevik term again? Ah, “useful idiots”!

International law, publicity and diplomacy make proxies crucial in most modern terrorism.

TRTL, you're still defending fear as a motive and basis for decision-making. Check back on your statements:

TRTL: "Fear is indeed a valid reaction, like anything else". No, rather: "Fear, like anything else, is not necessarily valid at all". By "valid", I understand in this context the meanings "just, sound, well-founded".

For example, a child bitten by an attack-trained Doberman may learn to fear all dogs, even friendly Pomeranians and Samoyeds! While the child's fear is understandable, especially around the time of being bitten, it is unsound and unjustifiable for the child to learn and behave by perpetuating the experience of fear itself. If the child is to develop well in this case, it must overcome fear of all dogs.

TRTL: "I think anyone who wouldn't feel a certain degree of fear in something like a dangerous, brutal wartime situation, would not be a psychologically sound individual". Many medals have been awarded to many people precisely because they have developed such mature self-control that they overcame their fear in order to singlemindedly achieve their goals in the face of direct, extreme dangers. I do not claim that fear is, or necessarily should be annihilated in such cases; most cases of such courage demonstrate exemplary spiritual/psychological soundness.

For a more routine example, when I made my first parachute jump, a friend and I tested our heart rates throughout the process. We wanted to disprove an ABC documentary showing a supposedly “objective” test of physiological responses to various situations, including parachuting, where the journalist's heart rate went hyper. Both myself and my friend managed a walking-pace heart rate (20 above resting) just prior to jumping, then a soft-exercise rate (40—60 above resting) immediately after canopies opened.

“[Fear]'s not something we can control”. We can and should, just as we try to control other emotions, instincts, and our appetites. Cynical politicians and security bureaucrats would of course disagree, privately, “off the record”, or under carefully guarded pseudonyms. But such people now seem driven entirely by greed for more power and money.

TRTL,

Some good thinkings there.
But the suggestion "..if...Islam is evil, then...'subvert' it into a peaceful religion..." is an oxymoron.

Exactly how do you 'subvert' Islam?? Does that mean changing the nature of Islam??

Nevertheless, let's see if we can develop some ideas.

Like any ideology, Islam is a force, very large force.
To neutralise a force, it must be (i) weakened, and (ii) actively counter-balanced by opposing forces.

Approach (1)...Directly weaken the force of Islam
This is very important.
Actively expose Islam as a religion based on Mohammed's lies. This is one way to weaken the Islamic force-- By challenging Islam's credibility and legitimacy.
Some benefits:- (i) Some (intelligent) Muslims will see the light and leave the religion. (ii) The religion will be ideologically and socially weakened.
Actively challenge Islam's credibility and spread the words.

Approach (2)...Maintain and Extend forces that oppose Islam
In fact many non-Islamic activities are inherently anti-Islam. (Even High School Musicals are strongly anti-Islam in many ways) But many forces lost their effectiveness due to political-correctness.
To avoid too many details, suffice to say here that, we must be vigilant all Muslims/Islamic Institutions abide by Australian values. (Example: No seggregation of sexes is permitted in Islamic schools).

Approach (3)...Avoid diminishing forces that directly / indirectly oppose Islam
Be brutally pragmatic. If Communists were to rise up to take control of Saudi Arabia, DO NOT oppose the communists!! Hopefully the communists will clean out Islam religion and Saudi Arabia will start anew as a typical secular state in future. ( Of course, this is purely hypothetical and assuming no one cares about the price of oil).
Now Atheists please TAKE NOTE...
More relevantly, do NOT lump Christianity and Islam as one in your attacks/criticisms. Christianity/Judaism are very important anti-Islamic forces in the West. Especially Christianity is a viable option for Muslims who leave Islam

We need to differentiate fear from paranoia.

Fear is an essential survival mechanism. On that basis, it's a tough sell to argue that fear is irrational.

When fear becomes paranoia, that's irrational. Paranoia is based on ignorance.

The opposite of paranoia is being overconfident / overtrusting or being in a state of denial. This serves to protect people in the short term from facing up to harsh realities.

We want neither the paranoids nor the deniers telling the rest of us what to think.

To be fearful of the potential influence of Islam on western society is far from irrational. The (solid left) UK Guardian reported on a poll in 2006 on the Muslim community which found that:

40% backed bringing in Sharia law (which backs stoning/amputations) into parts of Britain
20% expressed sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the July 7 London suicide bombers which killed 52 people.
1% said the London attacks were "right"

Does it mean one is a prejudiced right wing fascist for thinking that these stats are "alarming"?

Far from it. The Guardian continues:

(Left wing Muslim politician)"Sadiq Khan, the Labour MP appointed to the task force set up after the 7/7 attacks, called the findings "alarming"." (contd)

A rational person will be very concerned about these figures, as the left wing UK Labour Party was, including some Muslim officials.

A paranoid person would conclude that all Muslims are untrustworthy.

Someone in a state of denial would say that even debating Islam as a threat is counter-productive. A prejudiced denier would go further and suggest that expressing concern about Islam is evidence of some kind of character defect and pile on the personal contempt & ridicule. (aim: to shut down debate. Phobic of alternative points of view)

A rational person would look at the survey in its entirety, which also includes the following:

75% said they did not sympathise with the bombers.
91% said they felt loyal to Britain
41% were against bringing in Sharia to the UK (slighly more than those who wanted Sharia).
99% did not support the actions of the London bombers.
(and in a 2007 study reported in the left wing UK Guardian, and carried out by a conservative leaning think tank...)
84% said they believed they had been well treated in British society
28% thought the authorities had gone over the top in trying not to offend Muslims.

A rational person will say that not only are these figures alarming, but that we need to "win the battle of ideas within some parts of the Muslim community and reinforce the voice of moderate Islam wherever possible."

and "to ensure that Muslims, and all faiths, feel part of modern British society."

That's excactly what both sides of parliament said.

A rational person will known that (respectable, but open) debate is one way to ensure this.

Sources:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jan/29/thinktanks.religion
http://www.midsussexfreethinkers.org.uk/ShariaLaw.html (Guardian page)